When extending the time limit for lodging an appeal, the initiator of court proceedings cannot be considered a person not notified of the case under para. 1 of part 2 of Art. 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine - SC GC

When deciding on the renewal of the time limit for lodging an appeal after the expiration of one year from the date of the full text of the court decision, a person who has actually initiated the consideration of the case or court proceedings (plaintiff, applicant, third parties who make independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute) cannot be considered a person who has not been notified of the consideration of the case (paragraph 1, part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

This conclusion was reached by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

In the case under consideration, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the court against the acts and omissions of the state enforcement officer.

In June 2021, the court of first instance closed the proceedings due to the absence of the subject matter of the appeal. In June 2023, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the first instance court's ruling and a request to renew the missed deadline for appeal.

The court of appeal refused to open the appeal proceedings on the grounds that the appeal was filed after one year from the date of the full text of the court decision. The court concluded that the plaintiff was aware of the proceedings before the local court, as the court opened the proceedings at her request and she was duly notified of the dates of the court hearings.

In her cassation appeal, the plaintiff argued that the court of first instance failed to notify her of the consideration of the appeal in September 2021 and considered the case in her absence, which makes it impossible for the appellate court to apply the provisions of part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal and found that a person not notified of the case (paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) is a person who was not notified of the existence of court proceedings in the case and who, accordingly, did not know / could not know about the case.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that a plaintiff with a high degree of interest must take an interest in the progress of the case initiated by him/her. In the absence of force majeure circumstances, the plaintiff's (applicant's) ignoring the court proceedings initiated under his/her claim (statement, complaint) for a long time indicates bad faith and violation of the fundamental principles of civil procedure.

In the opinion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the rule of refusal to open the appeal proceedings if the appeal is filed after one year from the date of drawing up the full text of the court decision (part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) does not violate the essence of the right of access to justice, and the introduction of the above procedural deadline is in accordance with the tasks and basic principles of civil proceedings.

The plaintiff was aware of the existence of the case before the court, as the proceedings were opened on her complaint filed through the electronic court system in August 2020, and was duly notified of the date and time of the court hearing, at which the court of first instance decided to close the case. She also received a copy of the local court's ruling within the time and manner prescribed by procedural law.

Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 25 September 2024 in case No. 490/9587/18 (proceedings No. 14-29цс24) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122603347.

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.