{"id":19930,"date":"2026-09-26T10:18:37","date_gmt":"2026-09-26T07:18:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-26-09-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-09-26T10:18:37","modified_gmt":"2026-09-26T07:18:37","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-26-09-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-26-09-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 26\/09\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 686\/18006\/25 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the correctness of determining the amount of a fine for the receipt of an unlawful benefit (Part 2, Article 28, Part 2, Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the non-application of provisions on the mitigation of punishment taking into account pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that, pursuant to Part 2 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, when imposing a fine for crimes where the sanction provides for more than 3,000 tax-free minimum incomes, the amount of the fine cannot be less than the amount of the illegal income received, regardless of agreements between co-perpetrators.
\n – The Court emphasized that the 12,000 USD (498,876 UAH) received by the convicted persons constitutes illegal income; therefore, the appellate court lawfully increased the amount of the fine to 510,000 UAH so that it would not be less than the amount of the bribe.
\n – Regarding the arguments concerning the consideration of pre-trial detention (Part 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), the Court clarified that this is a right, not an obligation of the court, and it is applied at the court\u2019s discretion, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
\n – The Supreme Court found the discretionary powers of the appellate court sufficient, noting that 6 days of detention do not constitute an unconditional basis for the automatic mitigation of a fine in this case.
\n – The Court emphasized that the appellate instance had duly taken into account the degree of gravity of the crime, the data on the personality of the convicted persons, and the social danger of the act; therefore, there are no grounds for amending the judgment.
\n – The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court did not commit any errors in the application of the norms of substantive law, and the judgment is lawful and reasoned.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the judgment of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the convicted person and the defense counsel were dismissed.<\/p>\n

Case No. 601\/1253\/25 dated 09\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation review of a defense counsel\u2019s appeal against the judgment of the appellate court, by which the convicted person, sentenced for intentional grievous bodily harm (Part 1, Article 121 of the Criminal Code), had their release from serving a sentence with probation cancelled and was sentenced to an actual term of imprisonment.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that the imposition of punishment is a discretionary power of the court, which must take into account not only mitigating circumstances but also the nature of the crime and the personality of the perpetrator in the aggregate.
\n – The Court emphasized that the commission of a grave crime against the health of an individual while under the influence of narcotics, as well as a prior propensity for violent behavior, indicate the increased social danger of the convicted person.
\n – The appellate court had full authority to re-evaluate the characterization of the person from “positive” to “neutral,” since the absence of complaints in daily life is not proof of rehabilitation.high moral character.
\n* The Supreme Court agreed that the position of the victim, who requested a lenient sentence, is important but not decisive in public prosecution cases, where the state must ensure general prevention of crimes.
\n* The panel of judges noted that the simultaneous application of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code (imposition of a lighter punishment than the law prescribes) and Art. 75 of the Criminal Code (exemption from serving a sentence with a probationary period) requires exceptional grounds, which were not established in this case.
\n* The court also emphasized that the prosecutor has the right to change their position regarding the sentence in the appellate instance, as this is an exercise of their procedural rights enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the appellate court, finding the imposition of an actual custodial sentence lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

Case No. 162\/643\/22 dated 09\/16\/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 lawfulness of applying special confiscation of property (a tractor and a trailer) used as an instrument of the crime, and the assessment of the proportionality of such interference with the convicted person’s right to property.<\/p>\n

2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the issue of special confiscation, limiting itself solely to an arithmetic comparison of the value of the property and the amount of damage caused. The Supreme Court emphasized that special confiscation is not a punishment but a measure to prevent the commission of new crimes; therefore, its application must be duly motivated. The court noted that assessing the proportionality of interference with the right to property requires a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the crime, the lifestyle of the convicted person, their financial standing, and the importance of the property for their livelihood. Since the appellate court did not conduct such an in-depth analysis for each object of confiscation separately, its decision was deemed insufficiently motivated. The Supreme Court stressed that when resolving such issues, courts are obliged to maintain a balance between the interests of the state and the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights, avoiding the imposition of an excessive individual burden. The lack of proper motivation in the appellate ruling regarding these aspects became the grounds for overturning the decision and remitting the case for a new trial.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 757\/36046\/24 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court\u2019s refusal to open proceedings regarding an appeal against an investigating judge’s ruling, by which a motion to close criminal proceedings had been denied.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court established that the appellate court committed a substantial violation of the norms of criminal procedural law, groundlessly limiting the person\u2019s right to appellate review. The Court emphasized that, according to the current version of Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, rulings of an investigating judge on…[regarding] the refusal to satisfy a complaint against a prosecutor’s decision to close proceedings (on the basis of Clause 9-1, Part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code) are subject to appellate review. The Court of Appeal erroneously applied outdated legal approaches, ignoring amendments to the legislation introduced by Law No. 2548-VIII of 2018. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial, enshrined both in national legislation and in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Since the Court of Appeal unlawfully refused to open proceedings, this hindered access to justice and the rendering of a lawful decision. Therefore, the cassation instance found it necessary to cancel the challenged ruling and remit the case for a new trial to the Court of Appeal to ensure a proper review of the case on the merits.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 534\/985\/22 dated 09\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is an analysis of the provided court decision:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute in the cassation order was the correction of a technical error in the operative part of the appellate court\u2019s judgment regarding the type of punishment from which the convicted person was released with probation.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court established that the Court of Appeal, having sentenced the convicted person to a penalty in the form of restriction of liberty, erroneously indicated in the operative part of the judgment his release from serving a sentence in the form of imprisonment. The Court emphasized that a judicial decision must be lawful, substantiated, and reasoned, and the application of the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding exemption from serving a sentence with probation must clearly correspond to the type of punishment imposed. Since it was unambiguously clear from the case materials and the content of the judgment that it specifically concerned restriction of liberty, this discrepancy was recognized as a technical error. The panel of judges noted that the correction of such an error does not change the essence of the adopted decision and does not worsen the position of the convicted person. Therefore, the court concluded that it was necessary to amend the judgment to bring it into compliance with the requirements of criminal law.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor\u2019s cassation appeal and amended the judgment of the Court of Appeal, clearly stating that the convicted person is released from serving specifically the sentence of restriction of liberty with probation.<\/p>\n

Case No. 127\/15899\/24 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the sentencing for committing an especially grave crime in the sphere of narcotic drug trafficking (Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

The court of cassation instance concluded that the imposed sentence of 9 years of imprisonment is fair and complies with the requirements of the law. The panel of judges emphasized that the defense did not provide convincing evidence of the existence of circumstances that would significantly reduce the degdegree of gravity of the committed crime for the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court noted that active assistance in solving a crime must be proactive, rather than mere admission of guilt, which in this case was not established. The court also critically assessed the arguments regarding “difficult family circumstances,” as the convicted person committed the crime in the presence of her children and did not actually provide care for her mother. The court emphasized that the presence of children and dependents is not, in itself, an unconditional ground for mitigation of punishment for a particularly grave crime. As a result, the cassation instance confirmed that the lower courts had correctly considered all circumstances of the case, the identity of the perpetrator, and the mercenary nature of her actions.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.<\/p>\n

Case No. 991\/14114\/24 of 09\/21\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 991\/14114\/24:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of the former First Deputy Director of the State Enterprise “Ukraerorukh” of abuse of office, which led to the loss of 70 million UAH by the enterprise due to the placement of funds in an insolvent bank.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The court established that the accused, while performing the duties of the director, issued a resolution on the transfer of 70 million UAH to PJSC “Platinum Bank” contrary to the internal orders of the enterprise and the recommendations of the Ministry of Infrastructure regarding the withdrawal of funds from non-state banks.
\n – Although the prosecution charged the defendant with abuse of power (Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code), the court found no evidence of direct intent to obtain an undue benefit for the bank or of a personal mercenary motive on the part of the accused.
\n – The court concluded that the actions of the accused had signs of negligence: he foresaw the possibility of negative consequences but frivolously relied on their prevention, hoping to obtain short-term profit for the enterprise.
\n – Given the lack of evidence of mercenary intent, the court reclassified the actions of the accused from Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (abuse of power) to Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (official negligence).
\n – The court found the fact of causing damages to the state enterprise to be proven, as the funds were effectively lost as a result of the bank’s liquidation, and their accounting reflection as “accounts receivable” is merely a bookkeeping formality.
\n – Since more than 5 years had passed from the moment the crime was committed (December 2016) until the verdict was rendered, the court released the accused from the imposed punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The court found the accused guilty of official negligence (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), sentenced him to 5 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, but released him from serving the sentence due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, while partially satisfying the civil cLawsuit for the recovery of UAH 70 million in material damages.<\/p>\n

Case No. 522\/14032\/18 dated 09\/15\/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. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of an acquittal regarding four persons accused of extortion (Part 4 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), due to the prosecutor’s disagreement with the evaluation of evidence and the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and provocation of a crime.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the case review, failing to provide exhaustive answers to the prosecutor’s key arguments. Specifically, the appellate court did not refute the arguments regarding the lawfulness of the pre-trial investigation and failed to provide a proper assessment of the arguments concerning the absence of significant rights violations during the acquisition of evidence. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance was obliged to thoroughly verify whether a provocation of a crime and violations of jurisdictional rules had actually occurred, rather than simply agreeing with the conclusions of the local court. It was also emphasized that there is a necessity for a re-examination of evidence, including the questioning of witnesses and the victim, if doubts arise regarding the correctness of the established circumstances. The appellate court limited itself to merely citing the verdict of the first instance, which constitutes a gross violation of the requirements of procedural law regarding the reasoned nature of a court decision. Consequently, the decision of the appellate court was deemed premature and non-compliant with the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 711\/2475\/21 dated 09\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of the dispute:<\/strong> Cassation appeal of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court, by which a person was found guilty of causing minor bodily injuries to police officers during the performance of their official duties (Part 2 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. Court’s arguments:<\/strong>
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to procedural law, the cassation instance does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new facts, but only reviews the correctness of the application of legal norms by lower courts.
\n – The Court recognized as proven the fact of intentional infliction of bodily injuries, as the conclusions of the first and appellate instance courts are based on a set of consistent evidence: testimonies of victims and witnesses, forensic medical expert reports, and video recordings from police body cameras.
\n – Regarding the defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of photo lineup identification, the Court noted that this is explicitly provided for by Part 6 of Article 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and referred to the established practice of the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court.
\n – The Court rejected the arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the police actions, pointing to the results of the disciplinary investigation and the closure of the criminal proceedings initiated upon the application of the convicted person.of a charge of abuse of power by police officers (Art. 365 of the Criminal Code).
\n – Furthermore, arguments regarding the violation of pre-trial investigation time limits were refuted, as, taking into account weekends, the prosecutor submitted the indictment to the court within the timeframe established by law.
\n – Finally, the Court emphasized that the lower courts adhered to the principles of adversarial proceedings and provided a proper assessment of all evidence, including the testimony of the defense witness, which did not refute the established circumstances of the event.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense attorney.<\/p>\n

Case No. 202\/2316\/24 dated 15\/09\/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:** The legality of the closure of criminal proceedings by the courts of first and appellate instances due to an alleged violation of pre-trial investigation time limits by the prosecutor.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The lower courts erroneously included the day of notification of suspicion in the total pre-trial investigation period, which led to an incorrect determination of its end date.
\n – The Supreme Court, referring to the position of its Joint Chamber, emphasized that, pursuant to Part 5 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the day on which a person is served with a suspicion is not taken into account when calculating procedural time limits.
\n – According to the correct calculation, the pre-trial investigation period expired on December 20, 2023, and not December 19, as the lower courts mistakenly believed.
\n – Since the prosecutor issued the resolution on extending the investigation period precisely on December 20, he acted within the scope of his powers and did not violate procedural law.
\n – The Court also rejected the defense\u2019s motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber, as the legal position regarding the calculation of time limits had already been clearly formed previously and does not require further interpretation.
\n – As a result of the incorrect calculation of days, the courts groundlessly closed the proceedings, which constitutes a significant violation of criminal procedural law.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor\u2019s cassation appeal, overturned the rulings 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. 946\/3544\/23 dated 16\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court\u2019s ruling on the return of the convicted person\u2019s appeal due to their failure to meet the deadline for appealing the verdict of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the following arguments:
\n1. The Supreme Court confirmed that the right to appeal must be exercised within the 30-day period established by law, and its reinstatement is possible only if there are objectively valid reasons.
\n2. The panel of judges established that the convicted person filed an appeal only two years after the issuance ofof the judgment, which indicates a lack of proper procedural discipline.<\/p>\n

3. The court analyzed the submitted medical documents and concluded that they do not confirm the impossibility of the convicted person filing a complaint on time, as during the same period he participated in other court hearings and was in contact with probation authorities.<\/p>\n

4. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of legal certainty, noting that a person must take reasonable measures to exercise their rights as soon as possible after the expiry of the time limit, if it was missed.<\/p>\n

5. The arguments of the convicted person regarding the failure to provide him with a defense attorney were rejected, as the case files confirm that his rights were duly explained to him and that there were no motions for the involvement of a lawyer.<\/p>\n

6. In summary, the court recognized that the appellate instance lawfully refused to reinstate the time limit, as the convicted person did not prove any objective obstacles to filing a timely appeal to the court.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person \u2014 dismissed.<\/p>\n

Case No. 607\/9955\/25 dated 09\/17\/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 brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal of a judgment and an appellate court ruling regarding the conviction of a person for a knowingly false report about the preparation of an explosion (Part 2 of Art. 259 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The court emphasized that the cassation instance does not re-evaluate evidence, but only verifies the correctness of the application of legal norms by the lower courts.
\n – The use of a video recording from a search as a voice sample for examination is entirely lawful, as the search was conducted in compliance with procedure, and the recording itself does not constitute self-incrimination, which excludes a violation of human rights.
\n – The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, noting that the defense did not provide arguments regarding significant violations of rights that would render the evidence inadmissible under Art. 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
\n – Regarding the sanity of the convicted person, the court relied on the conclusion of a forensic psychiatric examination, which confirmed that the person was aware of their actions, and there were no grounds for ordering a complex examination.
\n – The court emphasized that the defense had equal opportunities to involve its own experts, but did not exercise this right.
\n – The appellate court duly examined all arguments of the defense and provided exhaustive responses to them; therefore, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense attorney \u2014 dismissed.<\/p>\n

Case No. 243\/8882\/17 dated 09\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the correctness of the qualification of the convicted person’s actions, namely, whether the act committed by him was a completed attempt at intentional murder (Part 2 of Art. 15, Part 1 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code), or intentional grievous bodily harm (Part 1 of Art. 121 of the Criminal Code).<\/p>\n

The SupremeThe Supreme Court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that the subjective attitude of the perpetrator toward the consequences of their actions is decisive for distinguishing between attempted murder and intentional grievous bodily harm. The Court noted that in attempted murder, the intent must be direct and aimed specifically at taking a life, whereas in this case, the accused acted with unparticularized (indefinite) intent. It was established that the convicted person did not voice threats of murder and, after the gunshot, saw that the victim was alive but did not take any actions to complete the crime, which indicates the absence of a direct intent to kill. The courts of lower instances thoroughly analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and expert conclusions regarding the nature of the weapon and the localization of the injury, and concluded that the actions of the accused are covered by the elements of Article 121, Part 1 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court emphasized that with unparticularized intent, liability arises only for the consequences actually caused. Thus, the prosecutor\u2019s cassation arguments regarding incorrect qualification and leniency of the sentence were found to be groundless, as the courts had duly substantiated their conclusions.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 522\/3068\/24 dated 16\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff (a Moldovan company) sought through the court to terminate the defendant’s ownership rights to a number of “CRICOVA” trademarks, citing the defendant’s failure to fulfill the terms of the assignment agreements.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court indicated that the lower courts approached the case formally, limiting themselves to a mere declaration of an “improper method of protection” without a proper analysis of the essence of the legal relationship. The Court emphasized that for effective protection, it is necessary to first establish whether contractual obligations exist between the parties and whether the plaintiff’s rights have been violated. It is important to distinguish between claims for the termination of legal relations (which is possible under the Civil Code of Ukraine) and special procedures for the termination of the legal protection of trademarks provided for by the relevant specialized law. The appellate court did not ascertain whether the chosen method of protection was effective in the specific situation, but merely dismissed the lawsuit without examining the factual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court is obliged to verify whether the chosen method of protection will lead to the restoration of the violated right, rather than simply rejecting the lawsuit due to the wording of the claims. Since the appellate court did not conduct a full and comprehensive review, its decision cannot be considered lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 450\/3483\/17 dated 16\/09\/2026<\/strong><\/a>The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of an appellate court ruling that upheld an acquittal for a driver in a traffic violation case resulting in a fatal accident.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed a significant violation of procedural norms that requires the decision to be set aside. A key argument was that the appellate proceedings took place in the absence of the victim and their representative, who had not been duly notified of the date and time of the hearing. The Court established that the subpoenas were sent to incorrect addresses, due to which they were returned to the court as undelivered. In accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, hearing a case without due notification of the victim constitutes an absolute ground for setting aside a court decision. The Court emphasized that the formal dispatch of correspondence without verifying the fact of the person\u2019s receipt of the notification violates the victim’s right to participate in the proceedings. Since this violation is fundamental, the Supreme Court did not address the prosecutor’s other arguments regarding the assessment of automotive technical expert reports, focusing instead on ensuring the procedural rights of the participants.<\/p>\n

The Court decided to set aside the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n

**Case No. 910\/11304\/25 dated 18\/09\/2026**<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of an application by Dolomite Group LLC regarding the recovery of professional legal assistance costs from the Prosecutor’s Office incurred during the proceedings in the court of cassation.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n* The Court emphasized that although the agreement between the attorney and the client determines the cost of services, such arrangements are not automatically binding on the court when allocating costs between the parties.
\n* When deciding on reimbursement, the court is obliged to assess the reality, necessity, and reasonableness of the expenses, guided by the criteria of proportionality established in Article 126 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
\n* The Court took into account the Prosecutor’s Office’s arguments regarding the disproportionate nature of the claimed amount (96,000 UAH) relative to the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed by the attorney.
\n* The Court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires the reimbursement of only those expenses that were actual, unavoidable, and reasonable in amount.
\n* The Court also considered the principle of dispositivity, noting that a reduction in expenses is possible only if there is a corresponding motion from the other party, which in this case was filed by the Prosecutor’s Office.
\n* As a result, having assessed the provided evidence and the scope of the work actually performed by the attorney, the Court concluded that the claimed amount was excessive and did not meet the criterion of reasonableness.
\n* The Court independently determined a fair amount of reimbursement based on the specific circumstances of the case and the principle of proportionality.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partiallythe court granted the motion, reducing the amount of legal fee reimbursement from UAH 96,000 to UAH 40,000.<\/p>\n

Case No. 902\/16\/25 of 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. The subject matter of the dispute is the prosecutor’s demand to invalidate a construction contract for capital repairs and to recover funds into the state revenue due to anti-competitive concerted practices by the procurement participants.<\/p>\n

2. The court was guided by the fact that the application of the consequences of an invalid transaction under Part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is of an exceptional and confiscatory nature and therefore cannot be an automatic consequence of any violation of competition law. The Supreme Court emphasized that this provision is applied only in exceptional cases, for example, in the presence of a conviction in a criminal case or in the event of significant damages caused to the state when a person has been unjustly enriched. In this case, the prosecutor did not prove the existence of an intent by the parties to harm the interests of the state, nor did they provide evidence of actual losses incurred by the state. The court took into account the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court dated December 19, 2025, which clearly distinguished between civil liability and public law sanctions. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s references to other Supreme Court decisions are unfounded, as the legal relations in those cases are not similar to the present one. As a result, the court concluded that there are no grounds for applying such a strict sanction as the recovery of everything received under the contract into the state revenue.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim, and left the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 757\/10356\/23-ts of 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to recover damages from the state, claiming that the illegal actions of the customs authorities regarding the classification of goods led to the bankruptcy of her company and the imposition of personal subsidiary liability upon her.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court emphasized that in order to recover damages under Article 1173 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of unlawful actions by a public authority, the existence of actual damages, and a direct causal link between them.
\n * In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove the illegality of the customs authorities’ actions, as the Supreme Court in previous administrative proceedings had overturned the decision recognizing the customs officers’ actions as unlawful.
\n * The court established that the subsidiary liability was imposed on the plaintiff by the commercial court due to her own ineffective management decisions as a director, and not due to the actions of the customs authorities.
\n * The absence of evidence of a causal link between the customs clearance and the bankrthe company\u2019s bankruptcy was a key factor in the dismissal of the claim.
\n * The plaintiff also failed to provide a clear calculation of the amount of damages, which constitutes a breach of the procedural burden of proof.
\n * The Court emphasized that a mere chronological sequence of events is not automatic proof of the causal link required for civil liability of the State.
\n * All arguments of the appeal were deemed to be an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which falls outside the scope of the cassation court\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 910\/8679\/25 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the demand of LLC “Phenomenon-Yu.M.” to declare invalid and cancel certain clauses of the decision of the Northern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of legality and the verification of compliance by the appellate court with substantive and procedural law. The Supreme Court analyzed the case files and concluded that the appellate court had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances relevant to the resolution of the dispute. The judges established that the challenged decision of the AMC was adopted within the scope of its authority and in compliance with the requirements of legislation on the protection of economic competition. The appellant’s arguments regarding violations by the antimonopoly authority were not confirmed during the cassation review. The Court emphasized that there are no grounds for overturning the ruling of the appellate court as provided for by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. Thus, the legal position of the appellate instance was recognized as well-founded and consistent with the actual circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Phenomenon-Yu.M.” and left the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 913\/496\/24 dated 09\/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 brief summary of the essence of the case and the legal position of the court:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the issue of the lawfulness and justification of the allocation of costs for professional legal assistance between the parties in a case regarding the recovery of bank debt under the condition of partial satisfaction of the claim.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that in the event of partial satisfaction of a claim, court costs, including costs for legal assistance, are subject to allocation in proportion to the satisfied claims, even if the decision as a whole was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that the amount of such expenses must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the volume of work performed, and the time spent by the attorney, rather than being based solely on fixed amounts specified in contracts. In this case, the courts of lower instances properly examined the evidence and established the fact of duplication of procedural<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 686\/18006\/25 dated 09\/15\/2026 1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the correctness of determining the amount of a fine for the receipt of an unlawful benefit (Part 2, Article 28, Part 2, Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the non-application of provisions…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19930","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\/19930","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=19930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}