Missed inheritance deadline during the war will have to be justified in court – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court currently has established practice that may affect thousands of inheritance disputes across Ukraine. In case No. 692/852/24, the court confirmed that the six-month deadline for accepting inheritance, established by the Civil Code of Ukraine, takes precedence over government resolutions, and the mere fact of martial law is not an automatic ground for its renewal.

In fact, the court reiterated that the provisions of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 164, which provided for the suspension of the inheritance acceptance deadline during martial law, cannot change the norms of the Civil Code. For many Ukrainians, this means that a missed deadline will have to be explained in court, and references solely to the war or being abroad may no longer be sufficient. Below we explain in detail the essence of the case and what circumstances should be noted.

What the dispute was about

According to Article 1270 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, an heir has six months from the date of opening the inheritance to submit a statement of acceptance. After the start of the full-scale invasion, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Resolution No. 164 "Some issues of notarial practice under martial law," which effectively provided for the suspension of the inheritance acceptance deadline during martial law, but for no more than four months. The plaintiff in the case referred to this resolution, believing that the deadline for formalizing the inheritance was not missed.

However, the Supreme Court concluded that the rules regarding inheritance acceptance deadlines are determined exclusively by the Civil Code of Ukraine, and a subordinate act cannot change legislative regulation.

Case details: why the dispute arose

The case reached the Supreme Court because of a resident of Cherkasy region who tried to renew the deadline for accepting inheritance after the death of her son. After the inheritance was opened in May 2022, the woman applied to a notary with a statement of acceptance. However, a few months later she submitted another statement – renouncing the inheritance in favor of another heir, her second son. Later, the situation changed.

In February 2024, the Cherkasy Court of Appeal declared this renunciation invalid and canceled the certificates of inheritance rights issued on its basis.

After that, the woman again applied to the notary to formalize her inheritance rights. However, the notary refused to perform the notarial act and recommended applying to the court to establish an additional deadline for accepting the inheritance. In court, the plaintiff explained that she acted in good faith and was guided by the then-current Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 164 when formalizing the inheritance. She also referred to the difficult situation at the beginning of the full-scale war, interruptions in the notarial system, shortage of notarial forms, and constant changes in legal regulation. According to the plaintiff, the contradictory normative acts caused the missed deadline.

Why the courts refused

The court of first instance, the appellate court, and later the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion: the plaintiff did not prove the existence of objective and insurmountable obstacles to applying to the notary. The courts emphasized that citing difficult circumstances in the country alone is insufficient to renew the deadline.

It is necessary to provide concrete evidence that the person actually could not exercise their inheritance rights. The Supreme Court noted an important circumstance: the plaintiff herself applied to the notary and performed notarial acts during the disputed period. This indicated that she had access to notarial services.

Moreover, other heirs successfully formalized their inheritance rights within the legally established deadline.

Supreme Court's position: Cabinet resolution cannot change the Civil Code

The most important conclusion of the Supreme Court concerns the relationship between the law and subordinate acts. The court explicitly stated that the Civil Code of Ukraine does not provide for a legal construct such as "suspension of the inheritance acceptance deadline."

Therefore, the Cabinet of Ministers had no authority to establish rules on inheritance acceptance deadlines other than those enshrined in the law. The resolution states that paragraph 3 of Cabinet Resolution No. 164 contradicts Articles 1270 and 1272 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and therefore is not applicable.

"The legislator, both in Article 1270 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and other provisions of the Civil Code, does not provide for the permissibility of such a construct as 'suspension of the inheritance acceptance deadline' and the possibility for the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to establish other rules regarding the regulation of the inheritance acceptance deadline by resolution. Thus, paragraph 3 of the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 164 dated February 28, 2022 'Some issues of notarial practice under martial law' contradicts Articles 1270, 1272 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and therefore is not subject to application," the Supreme Court ruling states.

What reasons may be considered valid

The court also reminded the criteria for assessing valid reasons for missing the deadline. Valid reasons may be circumstances related to objective, insurmountable, and significant difficulties for the heir. In particular, judicial practice recognizes the following as valid reasons:

• prolonged serious illness;
• being in inpatient treatment;
• difficult working conditions related to long business trips;
• military service;
• being in temporarily occupied territory with evidence of inability to contact a notary;
• other exceptional circumstances that realistically made submitting the application impossible.

Each such reason must be supported by proper evidence.

Being abroad no longer guarantees deadline renewal

The latest Supreme Court practice indicates a gradual tightening of the approach to inheritance disputes. Courts increasingly note that being abroad alone does not deprive a person of the opportunity to accept inheritance. The application can be submitted through a consular institution or sent to a notary by mail with proper signature certification.

Therefore, the key factor is not the heir's location but the presence of real obstacles to performing the necessary actions.

What to do if the deadline is already missed

If the six-month deadline has passed, the law provides two ways to protect the heir's rights. First – obtain written consent from all heirs who have already accepted the inheritance. Second – apply to the court with a claim to determine an additional deadline for submitting the inheritance acceptance statement. However, after the new Supreme Court conclusions, one should no longer expect automatic renewal of the deadline. In each case, it will be necessary to prove the existence of objective and insurmountable obstacles that existed specifically during the six-month period after the inheritance was opened.

If you are abroad – submit the inheritance acceptance statement personally to the Ukrainian diplomatic institution in the country of your stay (they are authorized to perform notarial acts). The signature on the statement can be certified by a local notary. However, for the document to have legal force in Ukraine, it must be apostilled (or legalized) and have a notarized translation into Ukrainian. The completed and certified statement (either through the consulate or a foreign notary) must be sent by registered mail to the Ukrainian notary handling the inheritance case or delivered through a trusted person.

The Supreme Court ruling in case No. 692/852/24 has become one of the most important guidelines in inheritance disputes during martial law. The court effectively confirmed that the six-month deadline for accepting inheritance continued to apply even during the war, and a government resolution cannot change the rules established by the Civil Code of Ukraine.

For citizens, this means the need to be much more attentive when formalizing inheritance rights. Relying solely on the fact of war, evacuation, being abroad, or the existence of a Cabinet of Ministers resolution is no longer sufficient. In fact, the Supreme Court not only denied the specific heir but also confirmed the general trend of recent years: martial law itself is no longer considered an automatic ground for renewing the inheritance acceptance deadline.

From now on, every heir must be ready to prove that the war circumstances created a real and insurmountable obstacle for them to contact a notary. And this approach will likely become decisive for thousands of similar cases in the coming years.

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.