An attorney from the law firm “ACTIO”, a member of the Family Law Center at the Higher School of Advocacy of the National Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine Tetiana Kondratenko discussed the peace agreement and why courts refuse to approve it during a professional development event for lawyers at the National Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine.
The lecturer thoroughly analyzed the peace agreement with the participants, including:
- 1. The concept of a peace agreement and requirements for its content.
- 2. Grounds for refusal to approve a peace agreement.
- 3. Judicial practice.
The characteristics of the peace agreement focused on the following:
1. The concept of a peace agreement and requirements for its content
According to Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a peace agreement is concluded by the parties to settle a dispute based on mutual concessions and should only relate to the rights and obligations of the parties.
Requirements for a peace agreement:
- Consent of both parties;
- The terms of the peace agreement must comply with the requirements of the current legislation and not violate the rights of third parties;
- The peace agreement must relate to the subject matter of the dispute being considered by the court;
- The decision to approve the peace agreement is an enforceable document and must meet the requirements for an enforcement document established by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”;
- The parties must submit a joint written statement to the court regarding the conclusion of the peace agreement.
2. Grounds for refusal to approve a peace agreement
The court issues a ruling refusing to approve the peace agreement and continues the judicial proceedings if:
1) the terms of the peace agreement contradict the law or violate the rights or interests protected by law of other persons, are unenforceable; or
2) one of the parties to the peace agreement is represented by their legal representative, whose actions contradict the interests of the person they represent.
The most common grounds for the court to refuse to approve a peace agreement include:
- Using a civil law contract instead.
- Violation of the principle of good faith.
- Going beyond the subject of the claim.
- Violation of the best interests of the child.
- The terms of the peace agreement are unenforceable.
- Procedural aspects.
3. Judicial practice
- Divorce:
“…The cassation court believes that in terms of divorce, the approval of the peace agreement should be denied, as according to Article 110 of the Family Code of Ukraine, divorce can only be granted by a court decision. Therefore, in any case, such terms of the peace agreement are unenforceable…” (ruling of the Supreme Court in the presiding composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court: Luspenika D.D., judges: Huleykova I.Yu., Hulka B.I., Kolomiets H.V., Lidovtsia R.A. (reporting judge) dated 26.07.2023 in case No. 523/1545/22).
- Property division:
- “…PERSON_1 and PERSON_3 submitted an application requesting the approval of a peace agreement, according to which the parties recognize the disputed property as joint co-ownership of the mother and child, in particular, the minor PERSON_2 and PERSON_3. The panel of judges, having provided a legal assessment of the terms of the peace agreement, considers that the provisions of the peace agreement contradict the requirements of the current legislation and concludes that the application for the approval of the peace agreement cannot be granted, as the proposed terms violate the rights of other co-owners, change the regime of joint ownership, their shares in the property without terminating the right of joint partial ownership. A peace agreement by its legal nature is a contract concluded by the parties to settle a dispute on terms agreed upon by the parties. At the same time, it cannot be considered as a contract in the civil law sense, as the procedure for its conclusion and approval is regulated by the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine…” (ruling of the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court: presiding – Krata V.I., judges: Antonenko N.O., Zhuravel V.I. (reporting judge), Krasnoshchokova Ye.V., Rusynchuk M.M., dated 02.09.2020 in case No. 554/6934/19).
- When applying for the approval of a peace agreement, PERSON_2 and PERSON_1, who are required to personally support and sign the peace agreement in court, did not indicate reasons for their inability to appear in court and did not provide valid reasons for their absence in court, preventing the court from hearing their opinion on the terms of the peace agreement, clarifying the opinion of PERSON_3, who also did not appear in court without valid reasons, and therefore it is impossible to ascertain the parties’ intentions regarding the conditions stated in the peace agreement as mentioned in the text.
- Under these circumstances, considering that none of the parties in the case appeared in court without valid reasons, the terms of the peace agreement do not meet the requirements of Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, so the joint statement of PERSON_2 and PERSON_1 cannot be accepted by the court for the approval of the peace agreement and the closure of the proceedings in the case. (ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal dated 04.06.2025 in case No. 180/1426/20).
Determining the child’s place of residence:
- After examining the terms of the peace agreement, the Supreme Court concluded that the peace agreement submitted by the parties on 14.06.2023 does not meet the requirements of Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, contradicts the law, and is unenforceable. According to the fourth part of Article 157 of the Family Code of Ukraine, parents have the right to conclude an agreement regarding the exercise of parental rights and the performance of duties by one of them who lives separately from the child. The agreement is concluded in writing and must be notarized. The parents of a minor child, the parties to the case, did not agree on who the child would live with, so they referred the dispute to the court, which, when considering the case, takes into account the conclusions of the guardianship and custody authority (Article 19 of the Family Code of Ukraine), its participation in the case is mandatory. (ruling of the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court: presiding – Luspenika D.D., judges: Stupak O.V., Hulka B.I., Kolomiets H.V., Lidovtsia R.A.) dated 2.08.2023 in case No. 753/8495/22.
- After examining the terms of the peace agreement, the Supreme Court concluded that the peace agreement submitted by the parties on 04.09.2023 does not meet the requirements of Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, contradicts the law, and is unenforceable. The parents of the minor child, the parties to the case, did not agree on who the child would live with, so they referred the dispute to the court, which, when considering the case, takes into account the conclusions of the guardianship and custody authority (Article 19 of the Family Code of Ukraine), its participation in the case is mandatory. According to the second part of Article 160 of the Family Code of Ukraine, the place of residence of a child who has reached ten years of age is determined by the mutual consent of the parents and the child. However, the terms of the peace agreement go beyond the subject of the claim, as in addition to determining the child’s place of residence, they establish conditions for the child’s upbringing, which is another subject of the claim, and PERSON_1 did not claim such requirements. Such terms of the peace agreement contradict Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, as there are no terms of the peace agreement regarding the consent of the child. In view of the above, the Supreme Court refuses to approve the peace agreement and continues the judicial proceedings. (ruling of the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court: presiding 9753/849 Dd., judges: Stupak O.V., Hulka B., Kolomiets H. V., Lidovtsia R.A.) dated 13.09.2023 in case No. 753/8495/22.
- “…Point 3 of the peace agreement contradicts the principles of the Family Code of Ukraine, which obliges parents to provide proper care in the upbringing and communication with the child regardless of the child’s place of residence.” (ruling of the Dovhyntsi District Court of Kryvyi Rih dated 26.11.2024 in case No. 211/6192/24).
- “…This is only possible during the trial, as the court cannot ascertain the child’s opinion during the preparatory proceedings. In addition, the peace agreement submitted by the parties does not completely resolve the dispute, but only establishes temporary residence of the child with the father for one year. The court was not provided with a conclusion from the guardianship and custody authority, without which the consideration of this case is impossible according to the provisions of Article 19 of the Family Code of Ukraine…”. (ruling of the Holosiivsky District Court of Kyiv dated 26.02.2025 in case No. 752/12229/24).
Alimony issues:
- “…At the same time, as can be seen from the information from the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate attached to the application for the approval of the peace agreement, the said property was acquired by PERSON_1 as their property during their marriage to the plaintiff PERSON_2. There is no evidence in the case materials to confirm that the said property was acquired by the respondent as their personal property (a.s. 17, 18). In addition, the termination of the right to alimony for the child due to the acquisition of the property is regulated by Article 190 of the Family Code of Ukraine as an extrajudicial way to settle the issue of child support, which provides for the possibility of terminating the right to alimony for the child due to the acquisition of the property exclusively by concluding a notarized agreement between the parents, provided that the guardianship and custody authority gives the necessary permission…” (ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated 25.09.2024 in case No. 759/17865/23).
- “…From the content of the peace agreement submitted to the court, it can be seen that the parties in the case, by concluding a peace agreement, transferred the right of ownership of 1/2 part of the ADDRESS_1 apartment to the defendant in the case PERSON_1, i.e., the terms of the peace agreement are not aimed at settling the dispute but are a requirement for the transfer of the right of ownership of real estate, while the subject of the dispute for which the peace agreement was concluded is the collection of alimony…” (ruling of the Sviatoshynsky District Court of Kyiv dated 21.03.2024 in case No. 2-1421-1/06 proceedings No. 6/759/239/24).
Source – https://tinyurl.com/4hctvnvs