Proceedings cannot be suspended due to the plaintiff's service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine if he insists on continuing the case - Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court

The defendant cannot invoke the institution of suspension of proceedings on the basis that the plaintiff is in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, provided that the plaintiff is actively participating in the proceedings and is determined to see the case through to completion. The Supreme Court issued this opinion by a panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court.

The court of first instance granted the employee's claim for reinstatement, and the court of appeal opened proceedings and suspended them at the employer's request under Article 251(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the plaintiff was called up for military service under general mobilisation.

Pursuant to Article 251(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings if one of the parties or a third party who has independent claims in relation to the subject matter of the dispute is a member of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court stated that the parties to court proceedings and their representatives must exercise their procedural rights in good faith; abuse of procedural rights is not permitted (Article 44(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

Article 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine outlines the fundamental principles of court proceedings, which comprise of a reasonable timeframe for case consideration, proportionality, discretion and competitiveness of the parties.

The provisions of Article 251(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine are aimed at protecting the procedural rights of a civil party to a civil proceeding who is a member of the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other military formations established by law and placed under martial law. They are designed to ensure that the case is considered objectively.

Proceedings in a case may be suspended only if there are circumstances that prevent its consideration.

The court of appeal did not pay due attention to the fact that the plaintiff, who was present at the hearing in the courtroom, and his representative objected to the suspension of the proceedings. In the cassation appeal, the plaintiff also insisted that the court of appeal consider his claim for reinstatement, recovery of wages for the period of forced absence, and recovery of non-pecuniary damage.

The plaintiff, who had been called up for military service, actively participated in the proceedings and insisted on completing the appellate review. The defendant's actions, insisting on suspending the proceedings in the case on appeal against the decision not in his favour, referring to unrelated circumstances, breach the principle of good faith.

In such circumstances, the institution of suspension of proceedings cannot be applied in this case to the detriment of the plaintiff's interests, the purpose of this institution and the principles of civil justice.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of August 15, 2023 in case No. 174/760/21 (proceedings No. 61-8044св23) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/112896497.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.