Determination of territorial jurisdiction is carried out only with due regard to the registered place of residence or stay of an individual - SC CCC JC

The provisions of part 1 of Art. 28 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine mandatorily establish that the determination of territorial jurisdiction is carried out with due regard to the registered place of residence or stay of the individual - the plaintiff. Therefore, the claims referred to in part 1 of Art. 28 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine cannot be filed at the actual place of residence or stay of the plaintiff other than the registered one.

Such a conclusion on the application of the law, which ensures the unity of case law, was made by the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in a case on cancellation of an order and reinstatement.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit at his place of residence in a rented apartment. He submitted a lease agreement to prove his residence at this address. The court of first instance considered the case and granted the claim. The court of appeal upheld the court's decision and did not respond properly to the relevant arguments of the appeal.

In the cassation appeal, the defendant, in particular, referred to the fact that the plaintiff was registered at a different address than the rented apartment, so the district court considered the case in violation of territorial jurisdiction.

The Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court cancelled the court decisions and sent the case for a new trial to the court with jurisdiction over the plaintiff's registered address, making the following legal conclusions.

Violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction by courts results in mandatory cancellation of court decisions and referral of the case for a new trial (Article 378, paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 411 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine).

The list of cases with alternative jurisdiction is set out in Article 28 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine, in particular, claims arising from labour relations may also be filed at the plaintiff's registered place of residence or stay.

A person may have several places of residence/stay. At the same time, the law requires registration (declaration) of a person's place of residence/stay, which can be carried out only at one address of his/her own choice, including on the basis of a residential lease agreement.

The registration (declaration) of the place of residence/stay in the prescribed manner is important for the exercise of certain rights of a person, in particular, when choosing a court to which the case is jurisdictional.

The provisions of Article 27, part 1, and Article 28, part 1 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine mandatorily establish that the territorial jurisdiction shall be determined based on the registered place of residence or stay of an individual party to the case, unless otherwise provided by law.

This requirement of the procedural law makes it impossible to abuse procedural rights in determining jurisdiction.

Thus, the provisions of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine provide for the use of only the registered place of residence, the actual place of residence of an individual is not legally relevant.

Using the actual address of residence to establish a specific court within the defined territorial jurisdiction will result in uncertainty in some procedural actions, as the actual place of residence may change almost daily. In addition, a person may have more than one actual place of residence, but only one place of residence may be registered.

The court of first instance, when opening the proceedings, did not establish the plaintiff's registered place of residence or stay and did not take into account that according to a copy of his passport in the case file, his place of registration is different from the address indicated in the lease agreement for the residential premises provided by the plaintiff, and the lease agreement does not contain information on the registration of the plaintiff's place of residence or stay. The court of appeal did not refute the arguments of the appeal, stating in its ruling that the first instance court's violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction did not merit attention.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of 24 June 2024 in case No. 554/7669/21 (proceedings No. 61-5805сво23) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/120029704.

This and other legal opinions of the Supreme Court are available in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua