Submit your application

The court punished the police for the rude conduct of the search

Let’s just say that the decision of the Dnieper Court of Appeal in case 199/6247/20 dated 16/06/2021 is not an unprecedented case, but deserves attention, since …

In Ukraine now there is no established judicial practice regarding compensation for moral damage caused by illegal actions of law enforcement agencies.

There are lonely court decisions, one of which we are analyzing.

This court satisfied claim with demand on MILLION for compensation for moral harm to citizens who suffered from the rude behavior of the guards – police officers who conducted a UNFUSED search.

Background of the proceedings

The husband and wife went to court with a demand to recover material and moral damage.

In the statement of claim, they indicated that law enforcement officers rudely burst into their apartment under the pretext of a search at 7:00 am. They broke into the gate and the front door, destroying the cameras along the way, not trying to enter peacefully at all.

Without showing their IDs and a court order for a search, they beat the applicant, who was washing in the bathroom at the time. After that, the naked applicant was “laid down” on the floor of the shower room and he layed there for almost an hour at gunpoint.

At this time, the police officers were searching for something in the courtyard of the house and in the dwelling itself.

The applicant was then allowed to get up and get dressed. They said that a search is planned in the premises, which will be carried out after the arrival of a representative of the Regional Bar Council, since the applicant himself is a lawyer.

The representative arrived closer to 9:00 and the search began, despite the fact that the applicant had stated that the search warrant had a different address. This house is registered in the name of his wife, who was absent at that moment. After her arrival and presentation of the original documents confirming the ownership, a protocol was drawn up stating that the investigation team had come to the wrong address …

The object of the search was the applicant’s neighbor, who is also a lawyer.

What can you say here?

It is logical that the victim wrote a statement to the police. His and the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, he attached to the statement of claim in court as evidence of what had happened.

The victim, in a statement to the court, indicated that what had happened was mockery and torture.

The defendant, represented by the HO NP of Ukraine, naturally did not recognize the claim!


The court of first instance and the appeal satisfied the claim.

The following conclusions were made:

  • The plaintiff’s rights to the inviolability of housing (Article 30 of the Code of Ukraine) and property rights were violated: (Article 321 of the Civil Code);
  • The right to respect for private and family life, housing and correspondence has been violated (Article 8 of the “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights …”).

It would seem that this is one of the few court decisions that gives hope that the impunity of the law enforcement system may come to an end someday, but …

This story has a sad ending!

On September 20, 2021, the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine entered into force in the case 199/6247/20 (proceedings 61-11686ck21), which “suspended the execution of the decision in the case”.

Why? Despite the fact that the unlawfulness of the search and all its consequences in the plaintiff’s house was established by the court, was his suffering left without compensation?

It’s that simple! The Main Treasury Service of Ukraine appealed to the Supreme Court, demanding the cancellation of the payment of UAH 1,000,000, as this could cause irreparable damage to the state budget!

P.S. Use the service “Defense of a lawyer during a search and seizure” from Law firm Speaker, even if you are a lawyer yourself, and go to the shower without fear.



Supreme Court of Ukraine on the interpretation of treaties on the basis of contra proferentem

The Ukrainian Supreme Court “remembered” about the “contra proferentem” principle! By the decision in case No. 756/1381/17-c of 03/25/2020, he consolidated the legal conclusion based on this doctrine. It reads: “If the interpretation of the content of a written agreement by means of general methods is impossible, the contra proferentem interpretation is used – the […]

It is possible to change the amount of recoverable legal aid costs

On December 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its conclusion in case No. 910/4881/18, published a legal opinion on the collection and determination of the amount of legal aid costs. So, in the course of this trial, the question arose that the amount of UAH 337,665.08 of expenses for legal assistance, spent by […]

Utility debts do not automatically transfer to new owners

In case of a shortage of funds for the purchase of housing, some citizens deliberately go to the purchase of an apartment or house “with debts.” If there is a significant debt for utilities, the owner is ready to sell his residential property at a good discount. The amount of such a discount usually covers […]


As practice shows, counterparties, when concluding international agreements (if lawyers are not involved in the development of agreements), practically do not attach importance to the jurisdiction of dispute resolution. Obviously in vain! The information will be interesting and useful to foreign creditors who have debtors from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. IN MOST CASES! Such “inattention” […]

Should you shy away from the paternity examination?

The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its decision in case No. 201/11183/16c, clarified the aspects of challenging paternity, the document reads: “In the case when a person’s evasion from participation in the examination or from the submission of the necessary materials (documents)  which makes it impossible to conduct it, the court has the right to […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine stopped family showdown over a shopping pavilion

By decision in case No. 202/3788 / 18 of 04.08.2020, the Supreme Court of Ukraine stopped the family showdown regarding the shopping pavilion, which the spouses had been sharing for several years. The court determined that the trade tent is movable property, transactions in respect of which are not subject to state registration, but it […]