The Supreme Court allowed the enforcement in Ukraine of a foreign court decision on the recovery of alimony arrears

The issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions is of practical importance for cases with an international element, especially in family disputes concerning alimony obligations.

The Cassation Civil Court as part of the Supreme Court, in the ruling dated July 15, 2026, in case No. 638/6833/25, considered the issue of granting permission for the enforcement in Ukraine of a decision of the court of the Republic of Uzbekistan regarding the recovery of alimony arrears.

Case circumstances

The applicant applied to the Ukrainian court with a petition to grant permission for the enforcement on the territory of Ukraine of the decision of the Uchkurgan Interdistrict Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which recovered alimony arrears and penalties from the debtor.

The basis for the application was that after the completion of enforcement proceedings in Uzbekistan, it was established that the debtor had significant income that was not taken into account during the enforcement of the alimony recovery decision. As a result, a significant debt arose, for the recovery of which the applicant applied to the Uzbek court.

The appellate court of Uzbekistan canceled the first instance court decision, but the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan canceled the appellate court ruling and upheld the decision on the recovery of arrears and penalties. Since the debtor resided in Ukraine, the applicant filed a petition for its recognition and enforcement.

The first instance court in Ukraine refused to satisfy the petition, considering that there was no document confirming the proper notification of the debtor about the hearing in the foreign court.

The appellate court reached the opposite conclusion, establishing that certificates from the court of the Republic of Uzbekistan, telephone records, and other documents confirming notification of the debtor through his representative were added to the case materials.

Moreover, during the substantive consideration of the case, the Uzbek court sent a judicial request to the competent court of Ukraine to deliver procedural documents to the debtor, but it was returned due to his absence.

The appellate court allowed the enforcement of the foreign court decision, and the debtor appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The main argument of the cassation appeal was improper notification of the debtor about the hearing by the Uzbek court.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that part one of Article 81 of the Law of Ukraine "On Private International Law" provides that foreign court decisions in cases arising from civil, labor, family, and commercial legal relations, foreign court judgments in criminal proceedings concerning compensation for damage and losses, as well as decisions of foreign arbitrations and other foreign state bodies competent to hear civil and commercial cases that have entered into legal force, may be recognized and enforced in Ukraine, except for cases provided by part two of this article.

The conditions for recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision subject to enforcement are defined by Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which a foreign court decision (court of a foreign state, other competent foreign state bodies competent to hear civil cases) is recognized and enforced in Ukraine if its recognition and enforcement is provided for by an international treaty, the consent to be bound by which was given by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, or on the principle of reciprocity.

The Supreme Court indicated that when deciding on granting permission for enforcement of the decision of the Republic of Uzbekistan court, compliance with the provisions of the Treaty between Ukraine and the Republic of Uzbekistan on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and family matters must be clarified.

The court noted that since the subject of the courts' consideration was the petition for permission to enforce the decision of the Republic of Uzbekistan court in the case of recovering alimony arrears from the debtor in favor of the applicant, the question to be clarified is whether the debtor participated in the hearing of the specified case.

Therefore, in this case, the fact of proper notification of the debtor about the date, time, and place of the hearing on the recovery of alimony arrears must be established.

The Supreme Court pointed out that when the document submitted to confirm the summons of a party to a court hearing does not indicate how and when the summons was delivered, and the party disputes this fact, the court must clarify the actual circumstances of the summons based on other evidence submitted by the parties, and if necessary, request from the court that issued the decision to review documents on the summons of the party established by the procedural legislation under which the case was considered.

"Notification of the process" should be understood as the court’s informing the parties about the place and time of the hearing, which will testify to the effective provision of the parties' "right to a court."

The court noted that having established that the debtor was duly notified of the court hearing on the recovery of alimony through his representative by power of attorney, and considering that the content of the decisions of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which have entered into legal force, established the fact of proper notification of the debtor as a defendant in the case about the court hearing of the dispute, the appellate court reasonably concluded that the debtor had a real opportunity to be heard during the case hearing and, moreover, appealed the first instance court decision in the appellate procedure through his representative.

The Supreme Court indicated that taking into account the appellate appeal of the first instance court decision, as well as the presence of a representative by power of attorney in the Republic of Uzbekistan, the debtor was not deprived of the opportunity within reasonable time intervals to take measures to learn about the status of the court proceedings known to him, which was also emphasized by the European Court of Human Rights in the case "Oleksandr Shevchenko v. Ukraine."

The court noted that the petition met the requirements of Article 466 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, all necessary documents were attached to it, and there were no grounds for refusal provided by Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Treaty between Ukraine and the Republic of Uzbekistan on legal assistance and legal relations in civil and family matters.

Therefore, the appellate court reasonably granted permission for recognition and enforcement in Ukraine of the decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and the arguments of the cassation appeal were essentially attempts by the debtor to avoid enforcement of a foreign court decision that had entered into legal force.

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court ruling unchanged, confirming the possibility of enforcement in Ukraine of the decision of the Republic of Uzbekistan court on the recovery of alimony arrears and penalties.

Read also about another case in which a mother received 20 thousand dollars as an advance on future alimony and then filed for alimony: the Supreme Court explained what to do.

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 page to stay informed about the most important events.