The overview was prepared by the Higher School of Advocacy of the National Bar Association of Ukraine.
Registration of former spouses in a residential building does not in itself indicate the maintenance of marital relations by these individuals after divorce
Decision of the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated October 31, 2024 in case No. 204/9592/21
In the case under review, the courts established that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of cohabitation with PERSON_2 as one family after the divorce that took place on April 4, 2007, and the registration of the former spouses from March 31, 2014 in the residential building at ADDRESS_1 does not in itself indicate the maintenance of marital relations by these individuals after the divorce.
Furthermore, the plaintiff did not provide proper, admissible, and sufficient evidence to confirm that at the time of the divorce, the former couple did not intend to terminate the marital relations.
The courts correctly considered that neither the plaintiff nor his ex-wife raised the issue of the fictitious nature of the divorce, and only sixteen years later PERSON_1 filed a lawsuit seeking to declare the divorce fictitious in order to resolve the issue of dividing the couple’s joint property.
Having established that PERSON_1 did not prove the existence of conditions under which the divorce could be considered fictitious, in particular, that the actions of the former couple after the divorce were aimed at fulfilling family functions and the purpose of marital relations, managing joint household and joint work, and taking into account that for sixteen years after the divorce neither of the spouses disputed the validity of the divorce, the lower courts reached the correct conclusions about the lack of grounds to satisfy the claim.
Source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122908272
Satisfaction of the original claim for divorce, as the parties live separately, do not maintain a joint household, and the restoration of family-marital relations is impossible
Decision of the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated September 05, 2024 in case No. 362/3766/23
The panel of judges notes that according to Article 40 of the Family Code of Ukraine, one of the grounds for declaring a marriage void by a court decision is the lack of free consent of a woman or a man to its conclusion. A person’s consent is not considered free if the person has, among other things, a severe mental disorder, as a result of which the person did not fully understand the meaning of their actions and/or could not control them. This is consistent with the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court, as set out in the decision of the Supreme Court dated December 14, 2021 in case No. 761/16077/19, which the applicant referred to as the basis for cassation appeal.
According to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Psychiatric Care”, a severe mental disorder is a disorder of mental activity (clouding of consciousness, perception disorders, thinking, will, emotions, intellect, or memory), which deprives a person of the ability to adequately perceive the surrounding reality, their mental state, and behavior.
The courts assessed the evidence in the case materials, including medical documents regarding the respondent’s health status in October-December 2021, February 2022, and June 2023 (i.e., after the marriage), with a diagnosis of “panic attacks; anxiety syndrome,” and substantiated that these documents do not indicate that at the time of marriage registration, the respondent suffered from a severe mental disorder, as a result of which they did not fully understand the meaning of their actions and/or could not control them.
The courts did not establish that at the time of the marriage registration, PERSON_1 was motivated solely by the desire to obtain certain material rights or benefits.
The panel of judges notes that PERSON_2 filed demands to declare the marriage void only in August 2023, almost two years after the marriage, specifically after the court accepted PERSON_1’s lawsuit for divorce.
The lower courts reached the correct conclusion to satisfy the original claim for divorce, as the parties live separately, do not maintain a joint household, and the restoration of family-marital relations is impossible. Under these circumstances, further joint life of the couple and the preservation of the marriage do not correspond to the interests of the parties and the moral principles of society.
Source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/121436659
The presence of a foreign element in disputed legal relations does not affect the decision to dismiss the claim, as it is established that there is a case in another court involving the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same grounds
Decision of the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated September 25, 2024 in case No. 202/14267/23
Having established that PERSON_1’s claims in the lawsuit filed on July 10, 2023 in this case to the Industrial District Court of Dnipro regarding the divorce between them and PERSON_2 are identical, arose between the same parties, concerning the same subject matter and on the same grounds as in the case of PERSON_2’s lawsuit against PERSON_1, filed on June 27, 2023 to the Šiauliai District Court, which was accepted for consideration, as a counterclaim by PERSON_1 against PERSON_2 for divorce, accepted for consideration by the same court on November 15, 2023, the courts made a reasoned conclusion about the legal grounds to dismiss PERSON_1’s claim without consideration.
The reference in the cassation appeal that the parties are registered in Kramatorsk, Donetsk region, and therefore the case is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian court is erroneous, as the courts established that the respondent resides in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, a fact confirmed by the plaintiff. The presence of a foreign element in the disputed legal relations does not affect the decision to dismiss the claim, as it is established that there is a case in another court involving the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same grounds.
In addition, PERSON_1 filed a counterclaim against PERSON_2 for divorce, which was accepted by the Šiauliai Chamber of the Šiauliai District Court, which also indicates that the plaintiff did not object to the jurisdiction of the specified foreign court.
Source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122118161
After the death of a party to the dispute, where succession is impossible, without the intention to restore family relations, it is impossible due to the death of one of the spouses, and the annulment of the court decision on divorce will not meet the requirements of the Fair Trial Convention
Decision of the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated February 07, 2024 in case No. 295/434/22
The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, did not take into account that the review of the default judgment and its annulment after the death of a party to the dispute, where succession is impossible, without the intention to restore family relations due to the death of one of the parties, destabilizes private relations and is a legitimate case of restricting the right to access to justice, did not verify the actual grounds and circumstances of PERSON_2’s application for the review of the default judgment and whether the satisfaction of her application would be justified by the circumstances that have changed since then, and whether this would correspond to Article 6(1) of the Convention.
Moreover, the appellate court erroneously considered that the district court’s ruling on granting the application for the review of the default judgment and the annulment of the default judgment is not subject to review in the appellate procedure, as it is not provided for in Article 353 of the CPC of Ukraine, and did not pay attention to the fact that it was appealed together with the decision in this case on the closure of the proceedings.
Thus, in the presence of a court decision on divorce, even if it was made with certain procedural violations but was valid until the death of the plaintiff, the court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, gave preference to these procedural violations, without considering that in such a case the principle of legal certainty is violated.
Considering the above, the conclusions of the court of first instance on the annulment of the default judgment and the closure of the proceedings in this case are erroneous due to the fact that after the death of a party to the dispute, where succession is impossible, without the intention to restore family relations due to the death of one of the spouses, the annulment of the court decision on divorce will not meet the requirements of the Fair Trial Convention. Failure to inform about the date of the court hearing in this case is not a reason to annul such a default judgment and close the proceedings due to the death of a party to the dispute over the divorce.