Service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine Does Not Exempt from a Restrictive Order: The Supreme Court Upheld the Decision in a Domestic Violence Case

During the full-scale war, a significant number of servicemen are far from their family's place of residence, but this alone does not exclude the emergence of disputes regarding domestic violence and the application of legally prescribed protective measures.

In the ruling dated June 25, 2026, in case No. 564/2604/25, the Cassation Civil Court within the Supreme Court considered the sufficiency of evidence of domestic violence, the assessment of risks of its recurrence, as well as the impact of the perpetrator's military service on the case review.

The ruling has practical significance as it confirms that the court's priority remains the protection of the victim and the assessment of risks of continued violence, not the status of the person as a serviceman.

Circumstances of the Case

A woman applied to the court with a request to issue a restrictive order against her husband, with whom she was in a registered marriage. She stated that after a forced relocation due to Russia's full-scale invasion, the husband began to systematically commit psychological, physical, and economic domestic violence against her.

According to the applicant, she repeatedly suffered physical violence, received phone messages with obscene language, death threats, and other intimidations. The violence also occurred in the presence of their minor child.

She repeatedly contacted the police, and one of the incidents was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations under Part One of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding bodily harm.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the application and issued a restrictive order for six months, prohibiting the husband from searching for the applicant, stalking her, contacting her by any means, corresponding, or making phone calls. At the same time, the court refused to prohibit him from staying at the place of joint residence. The appellate court left this decision unchanged.

In the cassation appeal, the husband, who was serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, argued that there was insufficient evidence of domestic violence, risks were not proven, and the court of first instance should have suspended proceedings due to his military service.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention and Counteraction to Domestic Violence" defines a restrictive order as one of the special protective measures for victims.

The Supreme Court indicated that issuing a restrictive order is a measure affecting the perpetrator, which can only be applied in the interests of the victims and upon the occurrence of certain factors and risks.

The court noted that when deciding on the grounds for issuing a restrictive order, courts must establish what forms of domestic violence the applicant was subjected to and assess the risks of continued domestic violence in any form in the future.

Separately, the Supreme Court emphasized the legal nature of this measure.

The Supreme Court stated that a restrictive order is not a punishment measure (unlike the norms established in the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code of Ukraine), but a temporary measure performing a protective and preventive function aimed at preventing violence and ensuring the primary safety of persons, considering the risks provided by law, until the issue of qualifying the perpetrator's actions and making a decision in the relevant administrative or criminal proceedings is resolved.

The court also noted that evidence attached to the application for a restrictive order must relate to the place of domestic violence, the safety risks to the victim, the likelihood of continuation or repetition of domestic violence, the occurrence of severe or especially severe consequences of such violence, as well as the death of the victim.

This may include evidence of psychological violence, humiliation of dignity, cruel treatment, the duration and systematic nature of the perpetrator's unlawful behavior, and evidence that he continues aggressive actions and does not wish to change his behavior, thus there is a risk of continuation of such actions.

Assessing the specific circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts.

The court decided that the applicant proved the existence of circumstances that, according to the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention and Counteraction to Domestic Violence," provide grounds for issuing a restrictive order for six months and establishing temporary restrictions on the perpetrator's rights.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the applicant, by applying to the court, aimed to take measures to prevent the likely continuation or repetition of violence, prevent the occurrence of severe or especially severe consequences of such violence, as well as harm to the victim, and therefore the issuance of such an order is aimed at ensuring the primary safety of the applicant.

The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the court of first instance considering the case in the absence of the interested party and unjustifiably not suspending proceedings during the applicant's service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine were rejected by the panel of judges.

The Supreme Court noted that during the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, the defendant's interests were represented by a lawyer who was present at the court hearings, and the applicant himself did not provide proper evidence of the existence of grounds stipulated in Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine for mandatory suspension of proceedings.

Thus, the Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the lower courts and confirmed the legality of issuing a restrictive order for six months.

Effectively, the Court emphasized that a restrictive order is not a punishment but a preventive protection mechanism for the victim. To apply it, the court must assess evidence of domestic violence and risks of its recurrence, and the perpetrator's military service alone does not prevent the case from being considered if proper representation is ensured and there are no legally established grounds for suspending proceedings.

Additionally read more: The Supreme Court explained whether the sale of an apartment without the permission of the guardianship authority is legal if the children left the residence due to domestic violence.

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