Supreme Court Grand Chamber judge comments on simplifying the establishment of facts of birth and death in the TOT

The need to apply to a court in order to establish the fact of a person’s birth or death in the temporarily occupied territory creates additional barriers for citizens compared with the general procedure for the state registration of such facts. This was highlighted by Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Maksym Titov during a round table dedicated to the 65th anniversary of the adoption of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

The event, organised by the Mission of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea jointly with the Representation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Ukraine, was devoted to issues of preventing statelessness, access to citizenship and documentation under conditions of war and temporary occupation.

The speaker noted that, as a general rule, for the state registration of a birth or death it is sufficient to apply to the civil status registration authorities and to submit the relevant medical documents. By contrast, if the birth or death occurred in the temporarily occupied territory, the corresponding legal fact must be established by a court.

The judge observed that documents issued by the occupation authorities have no legal force in Ukraine. At the same time, when establishing the fact of birth or death, a court may take into account the information contained in such documents. Moreover, the relevant cases are considered without the conduct of expert examinations, and the establishment of the legal fact is essentially based on the information contained in the medical documents provided.

In the speaker’s view, such information could be taken into account directly by the civil status registration authorities. This would make it possible to simplify the procedure for the registration of births and deaths in the temporarily occupied territories and to eliminate inequality in citizens’ access to the relevant administrative procedure.

In this context, the judge expressed the view that it would be expedient to initiate corresponding amendments to Ukrainian legislation.