1. RULING of the Supreme Court
Issue:
Interim measures to secure a claim may be applied by a court only within the scope of the subject matter of the claim. Such measures must not block the economic activity of a legal entity, infringe the rights of persons who are not parties to the proceedings, or impose restrictions unrelated to the dispute.
The absence in a court ruling of a clearly defined and exhaustive list of registration actions prohibited creates conditions for potential restriction of the rights and legitimate interests of a legal entity and entails the risk of unlawful interference with its business activities.
What the Court decided:
In this case, the claimant substantiated its claims, inter alia, by arguing that the inclusion in the amended charter of provisions allowing the exclusion of a participant holding less than 50% of the charter capital pursued a single real purpose — to remove the Executive Committee of the City Council from managing the company and unlawfully seize its share through redistribution among the company’s participants. The legitimization of unlawful grounds for excluding participants from the company created a real threat of irreversible consequences in the form of loss of corporate control and ownership interest by the claimant.
At the same time, when filing the claim together with a motion for interim measures, the claimant justified such measures by the threat of further redistribution of the company’s shares in favor of other persons.
Therefore, the performance of any registration actions in the Unified State Register concerning changes related to the LLC — specifically actions affecting the participant Executive Committee of the City Council (including its exclusion from the participants or amendments to information about it) — could make it impossible to protect and restore the claimant’s rights within a single court proceeding without initiating new litigation.
The Commercial Cassation Court emphasized that when issuing a ruling prohibiting certain actions, the court must clearly specify which actions are prohibited and define the range of persons to whom such prohibitions apply. The absence of a clearly defined and exhaustive list of prohibited registration actions creates prerequisites for unjustified restriction of the rights and legitimate interests of a legal entity and the risk of improper interference with its economic activity.
The Court concluded that the interim measures applied by the court of first instance — insofar as they prohibited any registration actions (even with the wording “including, but not limited to”) — went beyond the scope of the dispute and failed to meet the criteria of proportionality, adequacy, reasonableness, and balance of interests of the parties. At the same time, a prohibition on registration actions aimed specifically at excluding the claimant from the company would correspond to the subject matter of the dispute.
Why this matters:
This ruling illustrates the approach of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to such a sensitive legal instrument as interim relief. In Ukraine, unfortunately, this instrument has often been misused in corporate raiding attacks. The development of a balanced and consistent judicial practice in this area is therefore critically important for protecting business owners, including foreign investors.
2. RULING of the Supreme Court
(Commercial Cassation Court, panel of judges)
Date: 14 January 2026
Case No.: 916/5382/24
Issue:
A lease agreement for state or municipal property whose term expired during martial law is deemed to be automatically extended for the duration of martial law and four months after its termination, provided that the balance holder did not notify the tenant of non-renewal within thirty days on the grounds specified in Article 19 of the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Municipal Property.”
A change of ownership of the property does not terminate such an extension.
What the Court decided:
The Commercial Cassation Court noted that paragraph 5 of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 634 provides for the automatic extension of lease agreements without an application from the tenant and without a separate decision by the lessor, provided there is no proper and timely notice of non-renewal.
Letters sent by the lessor were not considered proper evidence of termination of the lease relationship, as one did not contain an explicit expression of intent to refuse renewal, while the other was sent after the expiration of the statutory thirty-day period.
The Court also emphasized that during privatization of the disputed property, the purchaser was aware of the valid and extended lease agreement and accepted the auction conditions. Under these circumstances, filing a claim for eviction constituted inconsistent conduct and violated the principle of good faith.
The Court further underlined that pursuant to Article 770 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a change of ownership of the property is not grounds for termination of a lease agreement, unless otherwise provided by the contract. Since the lease agreement was valid and extended by operation of law, it is binding on the new owner as well.
Why this matters:
The conclusion that a change of ownership does not terminate a lease agreement unless otherwise stipulated in the contract is essential for understanding the rights of tenants and lessors, as well as the available mechanisms for protecting those rights.
3. RULING of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court
Date: 17 December 2025
Case No.: 908/2388/21
Issue:
The proper defendant in a claim seeking removal of obstacles to the use and disposal of a land plot through demolition of an unauthorized construction is the person who currently creates such obstacles (the last acquirer of the object).
What the Court decided:
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine once again emphasized that registration of ownership title to an unauthorized construction in the name of the person who carried out such construction does not change the legal status of that construction as unauthorized for the purposes of applying, inter alia, Part 4 of Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (demolition of unauthorized construction).
Accordingly, in disputes concerning demolition of unauthorized construction where ownership rights to unlawfully constructed real estate have been registered without compliance with the procedure established by Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the proper method of protection for the landowner’s rights is a claim for demolition of the unauthorized construction under Part 4 of Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Since a claim for demolition of property that the landowner considers unauthorized construction is a type of negatory claim, the obligation to restore the land plot to a condition suitable for use — including by demolishing buildings, structures, or facilities — rests with the person who creates such obstacles at the time the landowner files the claim with the court.
Therefore, the defendant in a claim seeking removal of obstacles to the use and disposal of a land plot by demolishing unauthorized construction should not be the developer, but the last acquirer of that object.
Why this matters:
This legal position is crucial for determining both the appropriate form of protection of landowners’ rights and the proper defendant in such disputes. Equally important is the Supreme Court’s conclusion that even if a certain object is registered in someone’s name, but was put into operation in violation of the statutory procedure, such an object does not acquire the status of real estate, and ownership rights to it do not arise.
4. RULING of the Supreme Court
(Commercial Cassation Court)
Date: 18 December 2025
Case No.: 902/25/24
Issue:
A claim of a former participant of a company for payment of the value of his/her share in the charter capital of a debtor cannot be considered either a competitive or a current claim within the meaning of Articles 1, 45, 47, and 64 of the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine. By its legal nature, such a claim is a corporate proprietary claim of a former participant against the debtor’s assets that may remain after full satisfaction of all creditors’ monetary claims, and therefore it is not subject to inclusion in the register of creditors’ claims in bankruptcy proceedings.
What the Court decided:
After bankruptcy proceedings against a company were initiated, an individual filed a claim with the commercial court seeking recognition of monetary claims against the debtor arising from unpaid value of his/her share in the company’s charter capital following withdrawal from the company.
The court of first instance left these claims without consideration. The appellate commercial court agreed that the claims were current but canceled the ruling and adopted a new decision rejecting the claims, noting that following the review of creditors’ claims, the commercial court may either recognize such claims or reject them (in full or in part).
The Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the cassation appeal, amended the reasoning of the appellate court’s decision, and provided the following legal conclusions.
The right of a former participant to receive payment for the value of his/her share is a form of exercising corporate rights and, by its function, is similar to the right to a liquidation quota — a share in the company’s net assets. Although such a claim has monetary expression, it is not identical to a monetary obligation of the debtor arising from a civil law contract or other grounds directly provided for in Article 1 of the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine, and therefore it does not constitute a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy proceedings.
Why this matters:
This conclusion is important for understanding the mechanisms available to protect the interests of investors who exit Ukrainian companies, particularly in the context of insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings.
Business & Market Legal Developments in Ukraine
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Use of Budget Funds for the American–Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund
By Resolution No. 202 dated 16 February 2026, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved the Procedure for the Use of Funds allocated in the State Budget of Ukraine for the implementation of the Agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America on the establishment of the American–Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund.
Key provisions:
• The Ministry of Economy of Ukraine is designated as the main administrator of budget funds and the responsible executor of the budget program referred to in paragraph 1 of this Procedure.
• The Agency is defined as the recipient of the budget funds.
• Budget funds are allocated to enable the Agency to carry out payments related to:
o a matching term contribution to the American–Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund, established in the form of a limited partnership (the “Partnership”);
o other contributions to the Partnership as provided for by the Reconstruction Fund Agreement and the Limited Partnership Agreement.
• The Agency transfers the budget funds specified in paragraph 6 of this Procedure from its accounts opened with the State Treasury authorities to the hryvnia account of the Partnership or its representative office, opened with a bank or a branch of a foreign bank operating in Ukraine.
Commentary:
As can be seen, this Resolution is aimed at further detailing the arrangements governing the functioning of the American–Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund. However, for the Fund to commence its actual operations, a significant number of additional regulatory acts still need to be adopted, and many both fundamental and technical issues must be resolved.
