“Legal paradox or how the Supreme Court applied the same legal norm differently in similar casesThe Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court considered two similar cases regarding “Concord” and “Misto Bank”
banks, applying the same legal norm but interpreting it differently. This raises questions about the impartiality of the
proceedings and deprives “Concord” shareholders of access to justice.
”, — write: unn.ua
The case of “Misto Bank”Thus, on July 28, 2025, a panel of judges led by reporting judge Oleksandr Starodub considered the case of PJSC “Misto Bank” in written proceedings. The panel also included judges Semen Stetsenko and Albert Yezerov. The courts of first and appellate instances recognized as unlawful and canceled the decisions of the National Bank of Ukraine regarding the recognition of “Misto Bank” as insolvent, the deprivation of its banking license, and its withdrawal from the market. The National Bank of Ukraine and the Deposit Guarantee Fund disagreed with these decisions and filed cassation appeals with the Supreme Court, requesting the cancellation of the decisions of the previous instances and the closure of the proceedings.
The court sided with the NBU and the DGF, but in substantiating its decision, it noted that the claim of “Misto Bank” shareholders met the requirements of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP).
“The Fund’s reference in substantiating the arguments of the cassation appeal that the proceedings in this case are subject to closure on the basis of paragraph 6 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of Law No. 590-IX is unfounded, as the plaintiff’s claims comply with the norms of parts seven to ten of Article 266-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and the proceedings in this case were initiated after Law No. 590-IX came into force,” states the court’s decision.
The “Concord” caseThe case of JSC “ACB “Concord” was also considered by the panel of judges in written proceedings on July 30, 2025. The reporting judge in the case was Semen Stetsenko, who was part of the panel of judges that considered the “Misto Bank” case.
In the “Concord” case, the panel of judges also applied Article 266-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. Despite the fact that the cases of both banks are almost identical, the application of the CAP norm turned out to be completely opposite.
“Considering the purpose of the plaintiff’s appeal with this claim, the Court draws attention to the fact that satisfying the claims to declare unlawful the NBU Board’s decision to revoke the banking license and liquidate the bank is not capable of restoring the plaintiff’s rights, and will contradict the provisions of paragraph 3 of part nine of Article 266-1 of the CAP of Ukraine,” states the decision.
As in the case of “Misto Bank”, the proceedings in the “Concord” case were also closed by the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the previous instances were canceled without even examining the case on its merits. That is, the panel of judges did not provide a legal assessment of the court decisions that recognized the NBU’s decisions regarding the withdrawal of “Concord” from the market as illegal.
Is Themis not blind?An analysis of both rulings shows that the Supreme Court, with a two-day difference, issued two decisions in which it interpreted the same legal norm differently. According to Olena Sosedka, co-founder of Concord Bank, this may indicate the panel’s bias.
“It is especially striking that the Supreme Court ignored its own practice in similar cases. Moreover, the reporting judge in the ‘Concord’ case just two days before participated in the consideration of another bank’s case… and there made an opposite decision. This already resembles an anecdote:
— How much is 7×8?
— Are we buying or selling?
All these facts indicate the bias of the decision,” reported Olena Sosedka on her Facebook page.
The fact that the court panel explicitly stated in the ruling that no court in Ukraine can consider Concord’s claim regarding the unlawfulness of the NBU’s decisions on the bank’s withdrawal from the market does not add confidence in the objectivity of the Supreme Court’s decision.
“In this ruling, the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court set forth a legal conclusion that, according to the peculiarities of the legal regulation of the disputed legal relations, the claim of a former shareholder of an insolvent bank (in this case, a liquidated bank) is not subject to consideration either under administrative or commercial legal proceedings, and by the subjective composition of the participants in the legal relations, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of a civil court. That is, such claims are not subject to consideration by any court,” the ruling states.
Lawyers interviewed by UNN indicate that in this way, the shareholders of “Concord” bank were deprived of their constitutional right to a fair trial.
AddendumDespite the war in Ukraine, the process of withdrawing banks from the market has not stopped. Thus, since February 24, 2022, liquidation has been initiated for 8 banks. In 2023, for the first time in Ukraine, not only bankrupt banks but also profitable institutions fell under liquidation and license revocation – this refers to “Concord” bank. As Olena Sosedka stated, at the time the regulator announced the decision to liquidate the bank, the financial institution had enough highly liquid assets to make all necessary payments within 2-3 weeks. However, the bank liquidation process is strictly regulated by law and can generally last up to three years.