Submit your application

The Supreme Court to the Prosecutor’s Office is a friend and comrade! Don’t believe? Read on!

The case № 638/8636/17-c considered by the Supreme Court, 05/13/2020, was closed by a legal conclusion, according to which the inactivity of the prosecutor’s office is not evidence of moral harm, therefore, it cannot be compensated!

Initially, the lawsuit was initiated by a citizen who believes that the inaction of the law enforcement system is punishable . He decided that the recovery of compensation for moral damage from the prosecutor’s office, which did not protect his civil rights, is a completely realizable measure!

He motivated his demand by the fact that he several times over the course of 3 years appealed to the prosecutor’s office with statements about the commission of criminal offenses, but the prosecutor’s office did not enter his message into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations and by its inaction violated the requirements of Art. 214th CPC.

According to the plaintiff, this attitude caused him moral harm, because for a long time he visited the courts of various instances to restore his violated rights.

Also, due to the fault of the prosecutor’s office, his state of health deteriorated significantly and he, as an invalid of group 2, had to undergo a course of treatment.

The court of first instance took the side of the citizen and ordered the state to pay the plaintiff for the inaction from side of prosecutor’s office, but, unfortunately, the Supreme Court had a different opinion on this matter.

 “The plaintiff estimated his suffering at 647 000 UAH, and the court of first instance, which satisfied the claim, at 10 000 UAH! The decision was motivated by the fact that the plaintiff proved the existence of moral suffering, but could not justify their “price”! The appeal court fully agreed with this!”

Supreme Cour ….

took into account the arguments of the prosecutor’s office that this body did nothing of the kind and     the mere fact of the plaintiff’s appeals to law enforcement agencies cannot testify to a violation of his rights!

The prosecutor’s office also “justified itself” by the fact that the plaintiff exercised his right to appeal against decisions of state bodies, and she acted within the framework of the implementation of control functions!

The Supreme Court “took away” from the plaintiff even the awarded UAH 10 000, agreeing that Art. 56 of Constitution grants everyone the right to compensation for harm at the expense of the state if it is caused by the authorities in the exercise of their powers, but not in this case, because …

For the existence of grounds for the obligation to compensate for harm in accordance with the requirements of Art. 1174 CCU necessary: ​​an illegal decision (actions or inaction) of a state authority, the presence of harm, the unlawfulness of the actions of its perpetrator and a causal relationship between action and harm.

That is, the plaintiff had to give all these arguments and prove them properly! He did not do this, therefore, he has no right to claim moral compensation! 



Ukrainian Supreme Court on “legalizing real estate with obstacles”

The Ukrainian Supreme Court helped the investor! With the conclusion in case No. 761/5598/15-c of 04.24.2019, he recognized his legal rights in court! History in detail In 2003, an individual investor and a legal entity-developer entered into an agreement on equity participation in the financing of construction. The parties undertook to work together to achieve […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine on an additional period for accepting an inheritance

According to the rule established by law, the inheritance is accepted within 6 months, counted from the moment of opening the inheritance. The law allows for the possibility of extending this period if the heir, for some good reason, did not have time to enter into inheritance rights. The disputed points of “validity” of reasons […]

Civil marriage: showdown because of the apartment bought in it

Family showdown is an eternal topic! Even the array of family legislation and court practice accumulated over decades does not contain answers to all questions regarding family relations! The Supreme Court once again had to figure out whether or not the testimonies of witnesses certified by a notary are considered legal confirmation of a civil […]

Legal conclusion governing the donation of a share in a joint-stock company

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its decision in case No. 909/1294/15 of 01.10.19, “annulled” the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 33/45-09-1388 of 22.12.09, with the help of which the courts considered disputes on the donation of shares in these most societies to each other. Donating […]

Nuances of collecting foreign debts: preventive measures and practical aspects

The international market for business is an opportunity to earn more, but with a higher risk of losses. Losses are most often associated with non-fulfillment by counterparties of their obligations and with the legalization of court decisions on the territories of foreign states. In particular, with non-payments, that is, with debts, the return of which […]

Statute of limitation expiration – grounds for termination of the mortgage?

The Ukrainian Supreme Court published a legal conclusion governing the aspects of termination of obligations and mortgages due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Analyzing! Prehistory of the withdrawal in case No. 522/12443/17-c from 22.01.2020 Consideration was given to a claim to invalidate an apartment sale and purchase agreement, a counterclaim to remove […]