When deciding on the suspension of proceedings in a case due to a party or third person asserting independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute being in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the court must take into account the serviceman’s will

If a serviceman expresses his own will against the suspension of proceedings in the case and a desire to continue the consideration of the case (personally or through a representative), the court must take his will into account and continue to administer justice in the relevant proceedings.

From the moment martial law was introduced in Ukraine until the moment of its cancellation or termination, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations established in accordance with the law must be regarded as having been “transferred to martial law status”. Proper evidence for the suspension of proceedings in a case includes documents confirming the person’s service in the military (military ID card, commander’s order, etc.).

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

The claimant brought an action against her brother and his wife seeking to establish the procedure for using an apartment. During the consideration of the case, the defendant submitted an application to suspend the proceedings due to the mobilisation of the co-defendant into the Armed Forces of Ukraine, attaching copies of a summons to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centre and a military ID card as proof. The court of first instance refused to grant the application and considered the case on the merits.

During the appellate court’s consideration, the defendant submitted a statement in which, inter alia, he fully supported the defendant’s appeal and attached a copy of certificate (Form No 5) issued by the commander of the military unit. The appellate court recognised this as proper evidence and suspended the proceedings.

The claimant, however, argued that the certificate alone was not unconditional proof of the party’s service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Having examined the case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that a court is obliged to suspend proceedings in a case where a party or a third person asserting independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute is serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other military formations established in accordance with the law that have been transferred to martial law status or involved in conducting an anti-terrorist operation (point 2 of part 1 of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

From the moment martial law was introduced in Ukraine until the moment of its cancellation or termination, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations established in accordance with the law must be regarded as having been “transferred to martial law status”.

During the period of martial law in Ukraine and the conduct of general mobilisation, the proper evidence for the court to apply point 2 of part 1 of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine consists of documents (military ID card, orders of the commander of the military unit, etc.) containing information that the serviceman (a party or a third person asserting independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute) is serving in the military.

Furthermore, when a court decides whether to suspend proceedings in a case on this ground, in assessing its procedural obligation to suspend the proceedings, it must take into account the personal opinion of the party or third person asserting independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute who is serving in the military.

If the serviceman (a party or a third person asserting independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute) expresses his own will against the suspension of proceedings in the case and a desire to continue the consideration of the case (personally or through a representative), the court must take his will into account and continue to administer justice in the relevant proceedings.

In this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court took into account that in the statement submitted to the appellate court, the defendant, inter alia, emphasised that he fully supported the claims set out in the co-defendant’s appeal and also attached a copy of certificate Form No 5 confirming his actual service in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Accordingly, taking into consideration the fact that the defendant was undergoing military service during the period of martial law – which constitutes an objective circumstance preventing his participation in the consideration of the case – and the absence of an unequivocal expression of will by the serviceman to continue the consideration of the case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court.

Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 12 November 2025 in case No 754/947/22 (proceedings No 14-74цс25) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131941691.

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.