Supreme Court: losing a court case in the occupied territory is not a reason to refuse a new lawsuit

Thousands of court cases after the occupation of part of Ukraine's territory have effectively become inaccessible to the participants in the process and the judicial system. Some materials were not evacuated, so the parties face the question: what to do if the old case formally exists, but it is impossible to obtain its materials.

In case No. 369/5483/25 dated June 8, 2026, the Supreme Court, composed of judges of the Third Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, expressed its opinion on how courts should establish the identity of claims in situations where the materials of the previous case remain inaccessible.

Case circumstances

In March 2025, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, requesting reinstatement to the position of acting director of a state enterprise, recovery of wage arrears, average earnings for the period of forced absence, and moral damages.

Additionally, the plaintiff referred to the loss of an unfinished court proceeding in case No. 415/8728/18, which was being considered by the Lysychansk City Court of Luhansk region and concerned a dispute over unlawful dismissal, reinstatement at work, and compensation for moral damages.

The court of first instance refused to open proceedings, considering that another court was already handling a case between the same parties, with the same subject and on the same grounds.

The appellate court overturned this ruling and sent the case back for further consideration, noting that the case materials did not contain sufficient evidence of the identity of the parties, subject, and grounds of the two claims.

The Ministry of Economy, Environment and Agriculture of Ukraine filed a cassation appeal, insisting that the dispute is identical, and therefore the court of first instance lawfully applied paragraph 3 of part one of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court indicated that according to paragraph 3 of part one of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a judge refuses to open proceedings if a case involving the same parties, the same subject, and the same grounds is already pending in this or another court.

The necessity to apply paragraph 3 of part one of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine is due to the inadmissibility of courts considering identical disputes where the parties, subject, and grounds of the claim are simultaneously identical, and it serves as a measure to prevent courts from issuing contradictory and mutually exclusive judicial decisions.

According to this provision, a judge refuses to open proceedings if the claims considered by the courts simultaneously coincide in parties, grounds, and subject of the dispute, i.e., when the claims fully match in the composition of participants, substantive legal requirements, and circumstances justifying the court application.

The court emphasized that non-identity of at least one of the elements does not prevent interested persons from reapplying to the court to resolve the dispute.

Referring to the conclusions of the Supreme Judicial Panel, the cassation court noted that the subject of the claim is understood as a certain substantive legal requirement of the plaintiff against the defendant, regarding which the plaintiff requests a court decision.

The grounds of the claim are the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases their demands for the protection of a right and legally protected interest.

The Supreme Court also noted that when determining the grounds of the claim as an element of its content, the court must verify on what basis, i.e., which facts (circumstances) and legal norms the plaintiff requests protection of their right.

At the same time, submission of new evidence or other rephrasing of the grounds of the claim will not indicate the filing of a different claim; in any case, it will be an identical claim.

Evaluating the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the previous case, the Supreme Court stated that the mere fact of not transferring the case materials to another court does not unconditionally indicate the loss of the unfinished court proceeding and does not confirm the legal fact of losing the case.

The Court also emphasized that the absence of a procedural decision on the loss of proceedings, its closure, or leaving the claim without consideration itself is not sufficient grounds to conclude the identity of disputes within the meaning of paragraph 3 of part one of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court stressed that the materials of this case did not contain proper and sufficient information that would allow unequivocally establishing the identity of the subject and grounds of the claim in the two cases.

The mere fact of the existence of another case involving the same parties in another court is not sufficient for the application of paragraph 3 of part one of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Establishing the identity of claims requires direct examination by the court of the subject and grounds of the claims in each specific case.

Separately, the Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusion about the impossibility of making an unequivocal conclusion about the identity of disputes without the materials of the previous case.

The Supreme Court noted that more than six years have passed since the opening of proceedings in the first case, and therefore without examining the materials of the relevant case, it is impossible to unconditionally establish the identity of the legal facts on which the plaintiff bases their claims.

In conclusion, the Court noted that the appellate court correctly took into account the necessity to ensure a person's right to access to court and the inadmissibility of restricting such a right in the absence of indisputably established procedural grounds.

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court's ruling unchanged.

Accordingly, the Court confirmed that the mere existence of an old case does not automatically justify refusal to open new proceedings. It is necessary to prove that the disputes are identical in parties, subject, and grounds.

Also read in the article of the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" that occupation itself does not guarantee the restoration of procedural deadlines.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.