Wartime court: air raid alert became an argument for canceling a court decision
18 March 08:49
Holding a court hearing during an air alert in the absence of the parties is a violation of their rights to participate in the trial and a ground for setting aside the court decision. This decision of the Civil Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court is reported by the Judicial Portal, according to
In the case under review, at the time of the court hearing (November 26, 2024 at 13:00), an air raid alarm continued, the signal of which was announced at 12:37. Despite this fact, the Court of Appeal considered the case, while issuing a certificate stating that the parties did not appear at the hearing.
The panel of judges of the Civil Court of Cassation agreed with the arguments of the defendant’s representative’s cassation appeal that, considering the case during the air alert, which began before the start of the court hearing, the appellate court should have decided to postpone the hearing.
What legal provisions were used by the judges of the cassation instance?
First, Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantees everyone the right to judicial protection.
Secondly, Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which, in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine, is part of the national legislation of Ukraine, stipulates that everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by a proper and impartial tribunal established by law. And this right must be ensured by judicial procedures that are fair.
In reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and remanding the case for a new appeal, the panel of judges of the Civil Court of Cassation emphasized that, in deciding whether there were grounds for postponing the trial in a case in which the Air Alert signal was announced at the beginning of the trial, the court had to be guided by the priority of preserving human life and health, as well as the obligation to assist litigants in the exercise of their procedural rights, including the right to participate in the trial, and to assume that the absent litigant did not appear in court for objective and valid reasons, unless there was a request to consider the case in his absence.
As reported by Komersant ukrainskyi, the Supreme Court has ruled that mobilization with violations does not exempt from military service
The judges considered the case of a soldier who sued the district territorial center for recruitment and social support and concluded that discharge from military service goes beyond the disputed legal relationship between the district recruitment center and the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for calling a person liable for military service during mobilization is irreversible, i.e., one that has already taken place, and the recognition of the call-up procedure as unlawful does not exempt from service.
