Analysis of Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Case Law for March 2026: What the Review Missed
An in-depth analysis of 5 Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court cases and TCC fine rulings based on full decision texts and separate opinions of justices. Found factual errors, overlooked separate opinions by Justices Mazur, Pohribnyi, and Yemets, a key proportionality finding, and inaccuracies regarding party composition.
Analysis of Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Case Law for March 2026: What Was Missed and What Was Done Well
An independent analysis of a case law review covering Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decisions (cases No. 922/264/24, No. 922/5241/21, No. 542/881/19), Supreme Court Civil/Commercial/Criminal Cassation Court reviews for February 2026, and Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv decisions overturning TCC (Territorial Recruitment Center) fines. The analysis is based on full decision texts, separate opinions of justices, and external legal commentary.
I. Case No. 922/264/24 – Land of Historical and Cultural Significance
What the Original Review Conveyed Well
The author accurately set out the substance of the Grand Chamber's findings (paras. 319-322): a negatory claim is an effective means of protecting state rights to a land plot of historical and cultural significance containing an archaeological monument. The citations are correct, and paragraph numbering matches the decision.
What Was Overlooked or Presented with Bias
1. Alleged silence on the prosecutor's authority – not quite accurate
The author claims the Grand Chamber "stayed silent on the issue of an improper plaintiff and the lack of prosecutorial authority." Analysis of the full text shows otherwise:
In paras. 65-66 of the decision, the Grand Chamber examined the question of prosecutorial authority. The prosecutor sent a letter dated 06.11.2023 to government bodies requesting information on measures taken to recover the land plot. Since the authority had taken no action, the Grand Chamber recognized the prosecutor's right to bring the claim.
The appellate court recognized the prosecutor as a proper plaintiff under Art. 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office." The Grand Chamber did not overturn this finding.
The issue was not "silenced" – it was resolved in favor of the prosecutor at the appellate level and was not reviewed as erroneous.
2. Role of the State Geocadastre – it was already a party
The author notes "the need to involve the State Geocadastre," yet the Main Directorate of the State Geocadastre in Kharkiv Oblast was joined as one of the defendants at the first-instance stage.
3. A Key Proportionality Finding Was Missed
The author failed to mention the most important practical conclusion of the Grand Chamber: the state cannot seize an ENTIRE land plot when only a portion of it overlaps with an archaeological monument. The Court held that depriving rights to the entire plot "does not pursue a legitimate aim, does not strike a fair balance, and is disproportionate."
4. Context of Departure from Prior Case Law Was Omitted
The Grand Chamber departed from the conclusions of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in cases No. 557/303/21 and No. 748/1335/20.
5. ECHR Case Law Was Not Mentioned
The Grand Chamber relied on Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 – individuals cannot be held liable for errors of state authorities.
II. Case No. 922/5241/21 – Prosecutorial Authority and Recovery of Property
What Was Conveyed Well
The author fully and accurately reproduced paras. 10.54-10.59 of the decision. The citations are correct.
What Was Overlooked
1. "Selective departure" – needs specifics
The Grand Chamber adopted the position of the Civil Cassation Court dated 04.12.2023 (case No. 707/157/22).
2. The Separate Opinion of Justices Pohribnyi and Yemets Was Omitted
Justices S.O. Pohribnyi and A.A. Yemets set out fundamental counterarguments including that the Grand Chamber exceeded the scope of cassation review.
3. The Legal Paradox of Prosecutorial Practice
Para. 10.57 creates a paradox: the prosecutor cannot be the plaintiff when defending the interests of the community – the plaintiff must be the authority that itself violated those interests.
III. Case No. 542/881/19 – Gas Distribution System Operators and Charges for "Thin Air"
What Was Conveyed Well
The emotional assessment conveys the legal community's outrage. Paras. 193-194 are cited correctly.
What Was Overlooked
1. Justice Mazur's Separate Opinion Was Not Mentioned
Justice M.V. Mazur set out a principled separate opinion that supports the author's position.
2. The Grand Chamber Overturned Two Lower Courts
The courts of first instance and appeal denied the operator "Poltagaz" recovery of UAH 63,438.22. The Grand Chamber reversed both decisions.
IV. TCC Cases – What the Full Text Adds
Case No. 755/24028/25 (Judge N.V. Marfina)
Awarded: court fee UAH 1,211.20 + legal aid UAH 15,000.00 = UAH 16,211.20.
Case No. 755/22365/25 (Judge O.O. Khromova)
The court reduced costs from 15,000 to UAH 10,000 – the case "is not complex." Total: UAH 10,605.60.
V. Overall Assessment
Strengths of the Review
- Broad coverage – from the Grand Chamber to district courts
- Timeliness and practical value
Areas Requiring Improvement
- Separate opinions of justices – the most significant omission
- Factual error – the State Geocadastre was already a party
- The proportionality finding was missed
- Absence of ECHR case law that the Grand Chamber itself cited
Analysis prepared based on full decision texts from the SecondLayer database (legal.org.ua), separate opinions of justices, and external legal commentary. March 2026.