The Supreme Court initiated an appeal to the Constitutional Court regarding the Civil Procedure Code provision allowing suspension of alimony cases due to mobilization

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, courts have massively suspended proceedings in cases involving servicemen, citing the imperative provision of paragraph 2, part 1, article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. This led to many children being unable to receive a final decision on the collection or modification of alimony for years. However, The Supreme Court Resolution dated 30.06.2026 in case No. 699/1569/25 once again confirms a change in the rules. The Court stated that the interests of the child have unconditional priority, and procedural norms cannot turn the right to maintenance into an illusion. Even in times of war, the right to judicial protection and a safe childhood must remain inviolable pillars of Ukrainian society.

The conflict began in October 2025 when the child's mother filed a lawsuit against the father, a serviceman, seeking to change the method of alimony collection. The plaintiff requested to change the alimony from a fixed amount to a share of the income (one-third), arguing that the father is serving, has a stable income, and the child requires higher expenses.

The district court partially satisfied the claim, setting alimony at one-fourth of the defendant's income. Disagreeing with this, the father filed an appeal and simultaneously a motion to suspend the proceedings because he is serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The Cherkasy Court of Appeal on April 16, 2026, suspended the case until the defendant's service is completed. The court considered itself obliged to do so because the provision of paragraph 2, part 1, article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of Ukraine is formulated as "the court is obliged," leaving no room for judicial discretion.

The Constitution as a direct action act

The Supreme Court, sitting as the panel of the Second Judicial Chamber, disagreed with this formal approach. The judges applied article 10 of the CPC of Ukraine, which allows not applying a law if it contradicts the Constitution.

The Supreme Court noted that article 51 of the Constitution of Ukraine directly establishes the obligation of parents to support their children until they reach adulthood. This right is included in the list of those that cannot be restricted even under martial law (article 64 of the Constitution).

Unlike property disputes, alimony has an urgent nature. Delay in its collection effectively means loss of the right, since the child needs to eat and develop here and now, not after the war ends.

Automatic suspension of the case for an indefinite period is an excessive interference with the child's right to access justice and judicial protection (article 55 of the Constitution).

The principle of "Favor Minoris"

The Supreme Court referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. In any actions of authorities, including courts, primary attention is given to the best interests of the child (article 3 of the Convention).

The interests of the child by their nature must prevail over the interests of the parents. The Court noted that the father's service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine does not prevent the case from being considered, especially in simplified proceedings where the participation of the parties is not mandatory.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court has previously considered the admissibility of suspending proceedings in alimony cases due to the defendant's military service. For example, in case No. 344/432/24, the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court also stated that the father's mobilization cannot postpone the child's right to alimony. However, given the number of cases in this category reaching the cassation instance, a consistent practice has not yet been formed, and the issue requires regulation.

Appeal to the Constitutional Court

In case No. 699/1569/25, the Supreme Court applied a special procedural mechanism that involves not only resolving a specific dispute but also initiating a review of the law for compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine.

According to part six of article 10 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, if the court concludes that a law or other legal act contradicts the Constitution, it does not apply this law but instead applies the norms of the Constitution as directly applicable norms. In such a case, the court is obliged, after making a decision in the case, to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for submission to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) regarding the constitutionality of this act.

The subject of the appeal to the Constitutional Court was paragraph 2 of part one of article 251 of the CPC of Ukraine, which obliges the court to suspend proceedings if one of the parties is serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine during martial law.

The panel concluded that in alimony cases this provision does not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine. According to the court, it violates the principle of the rule of law guaranteed by article 8 of the Constitution, restricts the child's right to proper maintenance provided by article 51, and creates a disproportionate restriction on the right to judicial protection guaranteed by article 55, as it effectively allows suspending the case for an indefinite period.

The appeal to the Constitutional Court aims to eliminate the legislative problem. The panel believes the legislator should introduce a mechanism allowing courts in each specific case to assess whether suspending the proceedings corresponds to the best interests of the child.

As a result of the review, the panel satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decision to suspend the proceedings, and applied the provisions of articles 8, 51, and 55 of the Constitution as directly applicable norms instead of paragraph 2 of part one of article 251 of the CPC of Ukraine. Additionally, the court referred the matter to the Supreme Court to submit a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance of this provision with the Constitution in terms of its application in alimony cases.

The Supreme Court decision in case No. 699/1569/25 is a victory of the rule of law over formalism. The court clearly made it understood: defending the Fatherland does not exempt one from responsibility to their own child, and the law cannot be used as a tool to delay payments vital for the development of the new generation.

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