Failure to enforce court decision on damages from aggressor state does not create grounds for compensation from Ukraine – SC CommCC

The absence of a special legislative mechanism for enforcing decisions in cases involving the aggressor state does not give rise to legitimate expectations of compensation from the State of Ukraine, nor does it prevent individuals harmed by the armed aggression of the Russian Federation from applying to the international Register of Damage for Ukraine. A person cannot shift responsibility for damage caused by aggression from the aggressor country to Ukraine in the absence of factual and legal grounds.

These conclusions were reached by the Supreme Court in the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court.

In the case under review, the plaintiff filed a claim against the State of Ukraine, represented by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Treasury Service of Ukraine, seeking compensation for property and moral damage.

The claim was based on the violation of the plaintiff’s rights due to the prolonged inaction of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine in enforcing a court decision ordering the Russian Federation to pay moral damages in the amount of UAH 1 million, as well as its failure to initiate legislative changes to enable enforcement of such decisions on the territory of Ukraine. As a result, the plaintiff demanded compensation from the State of Ukraine for property damage in the amount of UAH 1 million and moral damage in the amount of UAH 100 million.   

The courts of first and appellate instance dismissed the claim, finding no evidence in the case file that the state enforcement authorities had unjustifiably failed to enforce the court decision by seizing property of the Russian Federation located in Ukraine. The courts emphasized that the lack of a special enforcement mechanism for such decisions does not constitute grounds for transferring liability for losses caused by aggression from the aggressor state to Ukraine.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts and made the following legal findings.

It is a well-established approach in civil law doctrine and national judicial practice that, in order to hold the state liable for the actions (or inaction) of officials of state authorities (including local self-government bodies, though this is not relevant in the circumstances of this case) in the form of compensation for damage, the simultaneous presence of three conditions must be established: unlawfulness (illegality) of the actions of officials or public servants of the state body; damage; and a causal link between the unlawful actions and the harm caused. The burden of proving the existence of these conditions lies with the plaintiff who brings a claim for compensation of damage under Articles 1173 and 1174 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

The mere fact of non-enforcement of a court decision awarding a certain amount to be recovered from the aggressor state for aggression against Ukraine does not prove that the plaintiff suffered property damage.

In this case, it was not established what specific actions prescribed by law the state enforcement officer failed to perform in order to enforce the court decision.

When assessing the arguments of the plaintiff’s cassation appeal regarding Ukraine’s failure to fulfill its positive obligation to create a legislative mechanism for enforcing a court decision on compensation from the property of the aggressor state, the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court noted that the absence of a special law establishing the procedure for enforcing decisions in cases involving the aggressor state does not give rise to a legitimate expectation of receiving such compensation from the State of Ukraine for damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of non-enforcement of the court decision.

The preamble to the Convention provides that the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to secure the enjoyment of human rights through the guarantee of those rights. Guaranteeing human rights by the state can be achieved both through active measures and through refraining from any actions. Such state activity in guaranteeing human rights is linked to the types of obligations of the Convention’s state parties, namely negative and positive obligations.

Negative obligations are the state’s duty to refrain from interfering with rights and freedoms, whereas positive obligations require the state to take certain actions so that individuals can enjoy their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This may include, for example, adopting legislation that helps ensure the enjoyment of Convention-guaranteed rights or providing real conditions for their realization.

The Civil Cassation Court drew attention to the fact that in its judgment of 9 July 2025 in the case “Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia”, the European Court of Human Rights, having found violations by the respondent state of human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, considered, among other things, that any future decision concerning compensation for damage caused as a result of the war should take into account the establishment of the Register of Damage and the ongoing discussions regarding a future compensation mechanism.

In the opinion of the panel of judges of the cassation instance court, this conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights is relevant in the context of the legal issues that arose in this case, since it concerns the mechanism for compensating damage caused by external aggression of another state. Therefore, such a mechanism cannot fail to take into account the specific features of relations involving an international element.

According to the established case law of the ECHR, the primary obligation imposed on the State is to ensure the enforcement of court decisions. Whenever “the State” is mentioned as the debtor — i.e., the entity against which the decision was rendered — it invariably refers to the very State under whose national legal order the enforcement of the court decision must be secured.

However, none of the Court’s judgments has addressed a situation in which a State is required to ensure, on its own territory, the enforcement of a decision rendered against another State. 

The Civil Cassation Court noted that the absence of national mechanisms for enforcing, on the territory of Ukraine, court decisions rendered by Ukrainian courts against the aggressor country does not prevent individuals harmed by the armed aggression of the Russian Federation from applying to the international Register of Damage for Ukraine.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court also concluded that the absence of an established violation of the plaintiff’s rights precludes any grounds for awarding him compensation for moral damage.

A link to the full text of the resolution of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2026 in case No. 553/88/25 (proceedings No. 61-8171св25) will be promptly added after its publication in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.