The panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court made an obviously biased decision in the case of "Concord" bank, which is in the process of liquidation. The judges effectively deprived the financial institution's shareholders of access to justice, violating their constitutional rights. This conclusion was reached by lawyers and former judges interviewed by UNN who reviewed the court's ruling.
Previously, the courts of first and appellate instances recognized the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine to revoke the license of "Concord" bank as illegal and ordered its cancellation. The NBU and the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals disagreed with these decisions and filed a cassation appeal. They demanded the cancellation of the court decisions and the closure of the proceedings.
"Friends, the Supreme Court overturned two previous court decisions by which we proved the illegality of the NBU's actions regarding the revocation of the 'Concord' bank's license. After 7 months of waiting for cassation, we received a decision that not only contradicts the law but also common sense. We were not even summoned to court. The case was heard in written proceedings - without hearings, without arguments, without the participation of the parties," reported Olena Sosedka on her Facebook page.
In paragraph 56 of the ruling, the panel of judges explicitly stated that no court in Ukraine is empowered to hear lawsuits from shareholders of banks undergoing liquidation regarding unlawful actions or decisions of the National Bank of Ukraine.
"In this ruling, the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court set forth a legal conclusion that, according to the specifics of 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 in administrative or commercial 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 panel of judges stated.
Thus, the Supreme Court did not even consider the "Concord" case on its merits, but immediately closed the proceedings. That is, the panel did not evaluate the decisions of the lower courts and did not recognize them as illegal or unfounded.
Without access to justice
The retired judge also drew attention to a systemic problem. According to him, since 2019, the state has been trying to restrict bank shareholders' access to justice. In particular, the procedure for proving evidence was changed, and the possibility of appealing to court was limited.
In this sense, the shareholders of "Concord" bank were no exception. Legal experts indicate that the court violated their constitutional right to access to justice.
"The Supreme Court focused only on the issue of the courts' lack of jurisdiction. However, I believe this is a flawed practice. According to Article 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the jurisdiction of courts extends to all legal relations arising in the state. This means that any dispute or legal situation arising within Ukraine can be considered by a court," noted Denys Nevyadomsky, President of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges.
He explained that, according to current legislation, particularly the Constitution of Ukraine, a panel of judges that states in its decision the absence of a certain jurisdiction in a case is obliged to indicate the proper jurisdiction. In the case of "Concord," the Supreme Court, in Nevyadomsky's opinion, removed itself from fulfilling its constitutional duty to resolve the existing dispute.
According to Dmytro Kasianenko, a lawyer at "Kasianenko and Partners" Law Firm, the panel of judges used quite critical wording in the decision regarding "Concord," which effectively deprives shareholders of access to justice.
"The wording 'such claims are not subject to consideration by any court' means that regardless of the circumstances, arguments, or evidence, a person will not gain access to justice. This contradicts Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantees everyone the right to judicial protection, as well as Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms," the lawyer noted.
Such an approach by the judges to resolving the "Concord" case caused surprise even among former high-ranking officials. In particular, former Deputy Prosecutor General, lawyer Oleksiy Bahanets emphasized:
"The published legal position of the Supreme Court effectively deprives citizens and legal entities of the constitutional right to appeal to court. I can't even believe that such a thing could be written in a decision."
Lawyers note that in the case of "Concord," the decision to deprive shareholders of the right to court could have been absolutely deliberate.
"Such an approach is a deliberate violation of the guaranteed right to access to justice and a fair trial. Every person has the right to have disputed legal relations resolved by an impartial court. Any other approach is merely an attempt by the state to avoid fulfilling its obligations to administer justice," stated Oleksandr Babikov, former deputy head of the State Bureau of Investigation.
Lawyers point out that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights is clear - restrictions on access to court must be proportionate and justified, and the complete absence of jurisdiction for a certain category of disputes is a violation of the European Convention.
Inconsistency is obvious
On July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court, in written proceedings, considered the case of "Misto Bank" and sided with the NBU and the DGF, while acknowledging that the shareholders' claim met the requirements of Article 266-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. Two days later, on July 30, the same panel of judges in a similar "Concord" case, without evaluating the case on its merits, reached the opposite conclusion – the bank's shareholders' claim did not meet the requirements of Article 266-1 of the CAP. In both cases, the same legal norm was applied, but its interpretation turned out to be diametrically different. In the case of "Concord," the court stated that satisfying the claim would not restore the shareholder's rights and contradicted the law, effectively depriving him of the right to consideration in any court, while in the case of "Misto Bank," the court considered the claim to comply with the law. At the same time, in both cases, shareholders of banks undergoing liquidation demanded the cancellation of the National Bank's decisions to withdraw financial institutions from the market.
It should be noted that the same judge, Semen Stetsenko, participated in the consideration of both cases. In the "Concord" case, which was considered after the "Misto Bank" case, he was also the reporting judge.
According to Olena Sosedka, co-founder of JSC "AKB "Concord", such inconsistency and disregard for the Supreme Court's own practice 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 had participated in the consideration of another bank's case just two days earlier... and there he made the 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," wrote Olena Sosedka.
According to retired judge Oleksandr Sytnykov, the key difference lies in the judges' approach to considering two similar cases.
According to him, in the "Concord" case, which was considered two days later, the judges deviated from their practice. The "Misto Bank" case was considered on its merits, and the shareholders were denied their claims, and the decisions of the lower courts were overturned. In the situation with "Concord," the judges did not even consider the case on its merits, but immediately closed the proceedings, applying the norms of special legislation. At the same time, according to Sytnykov, there is no such ground for closing proceedings in the Code of Administrative Procedure under which the proceedings in the "Concord" case were closed.
"It's strange that they (the decisions – ed.) were issued by different panels, but these panels included the same judge. And the judge who made the decision on 'Misto Bank' did not express a dissenting opinion when signing the decision. But when he was already the rapporteur on his case (the 'Concord' case – ed.), he applied a completely different legal position," Sytnykov noted.
Thus, according to the retired judge, the court issued two opposing decisions in similar cases. This, in his opinion, casts doubt on the consistency and impartiality of law enforcement. Such a divergent interpretation of legislation, according to Sytnykov, will complicate the consideration of similar cases by other judges in the future.
The state's position is consistent – no rights for bank shareholders
Lawyers interviewed by UNN note that the problem of unprotected rights of bank shareholders undergoing liquidation is systemic. The state systematically deprives them of the opportunity to defend their own interests.
Currently, according to current legislation, the process of withdrawing a bank from the market is irreversible. Even if the regulator (the National Bank of Ukraine) made an illegal decision to revoke a bank's license, it is impossible to stop this process or return the bank to operation.
But it doesn't end there. Since 2019, the state has been trying to restrict bank shareholders' access to justice. In particular, the procedure for proving evidence was changed, and the possibility of appealing to court was limited. The capabilities of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals were also significantly expanded.
"Shareholders are not considered creditors, so their claims regarding capital or compensation for losses are not included in the liquidation estate and are not subject to consideration in the procedure administered by the DGF. At the same time, a direct prohibition on considering such disputes by any court turns the right to protection into a formality. This can be qualified as a legal conflict bordering on direct deprivation of the right to a fair trial," said lawyer Dmytro Kasianenko.
Recall
Despite 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, co-founder of the bank, 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.