One Billion UAH for "Torture by Justice": The Supreme Court Clarified the Limits of Judges' Liability

A lawsuit for UAH 1,000,000,000 against the Supreme Court for "torture by denial of justice" became the reason for an important precedent. Can a citizen sue the highest judicial instance for its procedural decisions?

The Supreme Court, in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, adopted a ruling that is important for the stability of Ukraine's judicial system. Case No. 686/34801/25 concerned a citizen's lawsuit against the State of Ukraine represented by the Supreme Court for compensation of an enormous amount of moral damage — 1 billion hryvnias.

The plaintiff tried to qualify the court's procedural actions as "torture by denial of justice." This decision became an important confirmation that the legality of court acts cannot be reviewed outside the established procedural control.

"Torture by justice" for 1 billion hryvnias

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in December 2025. His claims were that the Supreme Court had previously made a series of decisions not in his favor: denying claims, closing proceedings, and returning cassation complaints. According to the plaintiff, these actions caused him deep moral damage, which he valued at UAH 1,000,000,000, relying on Article 129-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

The Khmelnytskyi City District Court, and later the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal, closed the proceedings in the case, reasoning that such claims cannot be considered by courts under any procedural rules.

Motives of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, reviewing the case, formulated a number of key legal conclusions based on the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges."

Personal immunity of a judge

The court confirmed that a judge is not legally liable for court decisions made, except in cases where such actions contain signs of a crime or disciplinary offense.

Such immunity is established as a guarantee of judicial independence, not as a personal privilege of the judge. Its purpose is to ensure the unhindered administration of justice without the risk of pressure through possible lawsuits over the content of decisions.

According to parts one and eleven of Article 49 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges," a judge cannot be held liable for a court decision made by them, except for committing a crime or disciplinary offense. The state is liable for damage caused by the court on the grounds and in the manner established by law.

The state as the proper defendant

The Supreme Court emphasized that courts and judges administer justice on behalf of the state, and therefore possible negative consequences of court decisions cannot be grounds for filing lawsuits directly against the court or judge.

In cases where the law provides liability for damage caused by court acts, the proper defendant is the State of Ukraine, not a specific court or judge.

Thus, courts cannot be independent defendants in disputes regarding the legality of their own procedural actions.

Exclusivity of the procedural control mechanism

The court stressed that all possible procedural violations made during the consideration of a case must be corrected exclusively within the same judicial case — through appeal or cassation review.

Attempts to initiate separate lawsuits against the court or judges effectively create a so-called "process within the process," which contradicts the principle of legal certainty and may be considered interference with the administration of justice.

Claims for compensation for property and moral damage caused by unlawful actions or inaction of the court may be subject to consideration in cases provided for by Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

If a lawsuit is filed with demands to recognize as unlawful actions/inaction of the court (judge or court officials) related to the consideration of a judicial case, to oblige the court (judge) to perform certain procedural actions, or to compensate for damage caused by unlawful actions or inaction of the court (judge) on grounds not provided for by Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the court refuses to open proceedings in the case (paragraph 1 of part one of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

ECtHR Practice

The Supreme Court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular in the case of "Plakhteyev and Plakhteyeva v. Ukraine", where the ECtHR recognized that restrictions on the right to sue judges may pursue a legitimate aim — the protection of judicial independence.

The ECtHR emphasized that the right of access to court is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions provided that such restrictions are proportionate.

In this context, the impossibility of challenging court decisions by separate lawsuits against the court or judges is recognized as justified, since the person retains the right to protect their interests within the framework of appeal and cassation review of the original dispute.

The Supreme Court effectively confirmed the basic principle of the functioning of Ukraine's judicial system: control over court decisions is exercised exclusively through established procedural instances, not by separate lawsuits against judges or courts.

Procedural nuances of cassation review

Special attention deserves the court's conclusions regarding the procedure for reviewing the complaint. The plaintiff demanded the case be heard with his personal participation. The court refused, explaining that according to Article 401 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the preliminary consideration of the case is conducted without notifying the participants.

The court emphasized that when considering civil or criminal cases, courts are not subjects of executive powers within the meaning of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, so they cannot be defendants in disputes challenging their activities.

The Supreme Court ruling of June 25, 2026, is a logical continuation of protecting the principle of judicial independence. It stops attempts to use civil lawsuits as a tool to pressure judges or as a way to bypass legally established deadlines and procedures for appealing decisions.

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