Topical Issues of Judicial Practice in Cases of Compensation for Damage Caused to Life, Health and Property of Individuals by the Russian Federation as a Result of Its Armed Aggression against Ukraine


  • Oleh Kuzmych


armed aggression; civil proceedings; compensation for damages; dispute of law; facts that have legal significance.


The article is devoted to the analysis of topical issues of judicial practice in cases of compensation for damage caused to life, health and property of individuals by the Russian Federation as a result of its armed aggression against Ukraine. In particular, we are talking about issues of a debatable nature regarding the possibility of consideration in one type of civil proceedings, namely in a lawsuit, along with a dispute about law, issues related to the establishment of facts that have legal significance. These are, in particular, the requirements for establishing facts of legal significance for individuals with claims for compensation for property and moral damage caused to them by the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Such a situation, as noted, is a consequence of the fact that the provisions of the current Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine do not contain provisions that would directly limit the possibility of establishing facts that have legal significance when considering cases in the course of action proceedings. Therefore, in judicial practice, when considering the above category of cases, the courts in the claim proceedings, at the same time, consider both the issue of a legal fact and a dispute about the right, thereby provoking questions as much as possible due to the specifics of each type of civil proceedings.
As a result, it is concluded that, on the other hand, such decisions are made by the courts in the interests of citizens of Ukraine, foreigners or stateless persons who have suffered property and non-property damage in connection with the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, and, since the Russian Federation does not recognize the sovereignty of Ukraine, it can be assumed that it will not appeal against them as in the appellate court. and cassation.