“Overview of the main decisions and separate opinions of the judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in 2025.”, — write: www.pravda.com.ua
It is known that the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms set forth in the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding for all subjects of power and are taken into account by other courts when deciding similar cases.
In return separate opinion of the judge is a manifestation of individual judicial discretion and the principle of independence of judges. Although such opinions do not have the legal force of a court decision, they greatly contribute to law enforcement, stimulate professional discussions, and in some cases deepen the understanding of the motives of court decisions, influence the development of judicial practice and become an impetus for improving legislation.
Advertising:
On my page in Facebook. Some of these publications reached an audience that approached the mark of 300,000 views.
Today I want to pay attention to several solutions and separate opinions about themwhich, in my opinion, have and will have a significant impact both on judicial practice in the state and on the protection of rights, freedoms and interests millions of citizens and tens of thousands of legal entities.
1. “Gold” of the party and the interests of the state The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court passed decisionwhich has systemic importance for the entire practice of handling the property of political partiesespecially in conditions of war and protection of national security.
The court clearly formulated: the property of a political party is not an “ordinary private asset”. It should be used exclusively for the realization of the statutory goals of the partythat is, for political activity.
Transfer of such property for charitable purposes allowed only in case of termination of party activity — through reorganization or self-dissolution.
In other words, a political party cannot freely “withdraw” its property, disguising it as charity. Political parties carry increased public responsibilityand attempts to withdraw assets will not be legalized by the courts.
At the same time, the matter was not clear-cut even within the Grand Chamber.
Five judges expressed separate opinionswhich indicates the complexity and sensitivity of the problem. Two judges indicated the procedural aspect and drew attention to the limits of the Supreme Court’s procedural activity court. In their opinion, the Grand Chamber should have sent the case for a new consideration of the proceedings.
Three judges drew attention to something else: they believed that the conclusion on the prohibition of the alienation of party property is based rather on judicial interpretation of the nature of political partiesthan on the direct norm of the law. And therefore, such an interpretation is theirs opinion, could not be entirely predictable for the participants of the transaction.
2. Erroneous police report: responsibility of state bodies The Great Chamber came to conclusion: the actions of a police officer in drawing up a report on an administrative offense in case of subsequent closure of the case due to the lack of an administrative offense can be grounds for compensation by the state only in the event that the closure of the case occurred due to an obvious non-compliance of the protocol with the requirements of the law or as a result of other illegal actions by police officers during the preparation of materials on an administrative offense or actions that have signs of arbitrariness.
Three judges had a separate opinion on this matter opinion indicating that the closure of the case on rehabilitative grounds already indicates the illegality of the police’s actions and may be grounds for compensation for moral damage regardless of the officials’ fault: “the conduct of proceedings in the case of bringing to administrative responsibility, which was later closed by the court in the absence of the event and composition of the administrative offense (rehabilitative grounds), indicates the illegality of the actions of the officials of the police unit who initiated and carried out the specified proceedings.”
3. Sanctions and judicial control: where the line of discretion passes As in previous years, based on the decisions of the National Security and Defense Council, the President of Ukraine continued to issue decrees on the application of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions). The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court recognized such decisions as legal and justified, stressing that the sanctions have preventive nature and aimed at protecting the national interests, security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, as well as countering terrorist activities (in more detail).
However, in 2025, the Grand Chamber noted in a number of cases that judicial review of such decisions is limited. This is related to the sphere of exercise of the discretionary powers of the President of Ukraine and other authorities that make contested decisions, as well as the need to protect national security and prevent terrorist activity.
There are available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions separate opinions judgeswhich emphasize that the judicial power is part of the unified state power and should exercise control in all spheres of public life. Judicial control must ensure that the President’s decision is based on the basis admissible, proper and objective dataprovided by competent authorities, and in accordance with legally regulated procedures. This approach allows protect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and society even in the area of limited discretionary powers.
At the same time, this approach correlates with the position of the ECtHR in the case MSL, LLC v. Ukrainewhere it was stated that there was no effective judicial control over presidential sanctions.
The court noted that the applicant in the case did not have a real opportunity to challenge the sanctions or seek their review, and the Supreme Court’s judicial review did not include verification of the factual basis of the decree. Thus the company was deprived reasonable and effective way of legal protection.
4. Seizure of the debtor’s property: is such a burden eternal? The Grand Chamber did as well conclusion regarding the removal of the attachment from the debtor’s property: the law does not provide for the obligation of the state (private) executor to remove the attachment imposed on the debtor’s property, in the event of the return of the executive document to the debt collector, since this this does not indicate the end of enforcement proceedings, and in such a case, the debt collector has the right to re-apply for enforcement of the court decision, which has not been enforced, within the time limits established by law.
Regarding this decision of the Grand Chamber, four judges expressed a separate opinion opinion: the presence for a long time of an uncanceled seizure of property (in the absence of open executive proceedings and actual property claims of the debt collector (creditor)) constitutes an unjustified interference with the right to peaceful possession of property. The authors of the separate opinion are convinced that in order to effectively protect the right, the arrest imposed on the property should be canceled by the court.
5. Labor disputes: between punishment and the principle of proportionality It was approved by the Grand Chamber several important decisions in cases related to labor disputes. I will stop at two:
and) in the first of them, the Grand Chamber did conclusion: if the employee was delayed in the settlement upon dismissal after July 19, 2022 (after the entry into force of Law No. 2352-IX), the court may reduce the amount of compensation for average earningsguided by principles reasonableness, fairness and proportionality. But the general period of accrual of compensation cannot exceed six months.
At the same time two judges in a separate thoughts expressed the position that in the current wording of Article 117 of the Labor Code the application of the principle of proportionality to determine the amount of average earnings optionaland the Grand Chamber allowed an archaic interpretation of the rule of law, which does not take into account the punitive nature of the article and its modern mechanism of liability limitation.
b) in a similar case The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in the new version should be applied from July 19, 2022 to legal relationships that arose before the entry into force of Law No. 2352-IX, but did not terminate or were terminated after its entry into force (continuing legal relationships), and limit the accrual of average earnings during the delay in calculation to six months.
6. Social benefits in times of war Great Chamber decided: the annual cash payment to persons disabled as a result of the war has auxiliary and stimulating character and is not the main source of livelihood. Since this payment is established by law and is not directly defined by the Constitution of Ukraine as a component of the right to social protection, in the conditions of martial law the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has the right to change the order and amount of such payment, in particular by reducing it, as well as to delegate the relevant powers to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine within the limits of budget allocations.
Seven judges of the Grand Chamber, agreeing with the decision, expressed a separate opinion, noting that the dispute in this case primarily concerns the public and legal interests of the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as subjects of power. Three of them additionally drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff did not prove that the deterioration of his living conditions to a level that would threaten his existence.
Three more judges disagreed with the decision of the Grand Chamber. They are convinced in that in the conditions of martial law and resistance to Russia’s armed aggression, servicemen, war veterans, war disabled people need enhanced social protection. Social rights and the previously achieved level of material security of such persons cannot be limited, as it contradicts how Constitution of Ukraineas well as the goals of the laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in this area.
7. About judicial guarantees for military personnel In the matter No 754/947/22 The Grand Chamber formulated approaches to the application of the rules of procedural law regarding the suspension of proceedings in connection with a party’s military service. The court recognized that the will of the military serviceman himself may be important for solving this issue.
This approach caused a debate within the Grand Chamber.
Five judges expressed separate opinions, which differ significantly among themselves. Alone considered, what what the procedural law does not provide for any exceptions: if there are established conditions, the proceedings must be stopped regardless of the serviceman’s desire to participate in the case. In their opinion, the court does not have the discretion to deviate from the direct norm of the law.
Other judges emphasized the necessity historical and target interpretation the relevant rule of law. They suggested taking into account the conditions of its adoption, the evolution of legislative regulation and real social relations, in particular, the actual possibility of a person to participate in the process. For this, in their opinion, it is necessary to evaluate the nature of the service, the type of troops, the position of the serviceman, the task and the place of deployment of the military unit.
Thus, this case became another example of the difficult search for a balance between formal procedural guarantees and the realities of wartime.
8. Land disputes: what the prosecutor can do and what no one else can do? In the matter No. 911/906/23 The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court formulated two fundamental legal conclusions that are important for the practice of protecting the interests of the state and resolving land disputes in the interests of private individuals.
First, the Grand Chamber clearly emphasized: the law does not limit the powers of the prosecutor to apply to the court in the interests of the state within the territorial limits of the location of the relevant prosecutor’s office or body authorized to protect these interests. Moreover, the absence of such a body does not deprive the prosecutor of the right to sue. The very fact of violation or threat of violation of the interests of the state and inaction or improper actions of the competent authority are decisive. This approach is fully consistent with part three of Article 23 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office” and Article 53 of the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine and confirms the constitutional role of the prosecutor’s office in representing the interests of the state in court.
Secondly, the Grand Chamber formed a comprehensive approach to the protection of rights in situations where a person illegally seizes someone else’s land plot and combines it with the one that is legally owned by him. The court concluded that effective and legitimate means of protection in such legal relations, it consists not only in claiming the disputed land, but also in terminating the right of ownership of the newly formed (united) plot and canceling its state registration. The reason is simple: land plots as separate objects of civil rights cease to exist after unification, their cadastral numbers are cancelled, and entries in the register are closed. That is why only the decision to claim without removing the legal defect of the newly created plot does not ensure real restoration of the violated right.
At the same time, the court emphasized that this approach does not violate the defendant’s rights to those land plots that were legally acquired by him. Termination of ownership of the association new land plot and canceling its registration does not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to form and register a new land plot – already without the disputed part.
However, six judges of the Grand Chamber expressed separate opiniondisagreeing with these conclusions. In their opinion, in particular, the proper method of defense in such disputes is a classic vindication lawsuit — claiming the disputed land plot in its original coordinates, boundaries and configuration, that is, before division or unification. Opponent judges believe that there is a termination of the right of ownership of the entire newly formed plot excessive interference with property rightsbecause it actually nullifies the legal title to that part of the land, the legality of which is not contested by anyone.
The cited decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and separate opinions of judges clearly demonstrate that the unity of judicial practice does not mean the uniformity of legal thinking. On the contrary, it is the professional discussion, different approaches to the interpretation of legal norms, the search for a balance between the formal requirements of the law and the realities of social life that are signs of a living, responsible and independent justice system.
Separate opinions of judges, even without binding force, often turn out to be no less influential than the position of the majority. They form alternative legal arguments, outline problem areas of legal regulation and indicate possible directions of evolution of judicial practice and legislation.
That is why the analysis of such decisions and discussions around them is important not only for the professional legal community, but also for the wider society, because the real level of protection of human rights and freedoms and trust in the judiciary as a whole depends on the quality of judicial approaches.
Oleg Tkachuk
A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.