Lost documents due to occupation: The Supreme Court explained when the fact of residence can be proven through the court

The Supreme Court, in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, in the ruling dated July 17, 2026, in case No. 522/17560/23, considered the issue of establishing the fact of permanent residence on the territory of Ukraine as a legal fact necessary for the further processing of Ukrainian citizenship or immigration permit.

The issue of confirming residence in Ukraine before August 24, 1991, acquires special significance in cases where the necessary archival documents remain in temporarily occupied territories and obtaining them is objectively impossible. In such cases, judicial practice defines the limits of applying a separate proceeding and the conditions under which a legal fact can be established by the court.

Circumstances of the case

The applicant applied to the court with a request to establish the fact of her permanent residence in Ukraine from July 17, 1985, to April 5, 1988.

She stated that since the summer of 1985 she lived in Ukraine, was registered in the city of Makiivka, Donetsk region, and later moved to Georgia, where she registered her place of residence, but continued to study and live in Ukraine. Establishing this fact was necessary for her to obtain a Ukrainian citizen’s passport or a permanent residence permit.

The courts of first and appellate instances established that information about the applicant’s residence is confirmed by the USSR passport with registration and deregistration marks, employment record book, diploma of graduation from the Makiivka Engineering and Construction Institute, as well as other evidence.

The Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Odessa region appealed the decision, referring, in particular, to the fact that the applicant did not use the administrative procedure for citizenship registration, there is a dispute about the right between the parties, and the submitted documents raise doubts about their authenticity.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that according to paragraph 44 of the Procedure, in the absence of documents confirming the fact of permanent residence of a person before August 24, 1991, on the territory of Ukraine, for the processing of acquiring Ukrainian citizenship, a relevant court decision is submitted.

The court noted that the courts of previous instances provided a proper reasoned assessment of the submitted evidence of the applicant’s permanent residence in Ukraine from July 17, 1985, to April 5, 1988, collectively, taking into account the purpose of establishing the specified legal fact, as well as the impossibility of confirming it otherwise, and therefore reached a generally justified conclusion about the existence of legal grounds for establishing a fact of legal significance in court.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the references of the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Odessa region regarding doubts about the authenticity of the documents submitted by the applicant were reasonably rejected by the courts of previous instances due to the absence of corresponding motions for judicial examinations.

However, no requests for the original evidence under part six of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine were filed. Responses obtained from court inquiries were taken into account when evaluating the evidence collectively and considering the principle of balance of probabilities.

Separately, the Supreme Court emphasized the limits of reviewing the case by the cassation instance and noted that establishing the circumstances of the case, examining, and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances. The cassation court does not have the authority to interfere with the evaluation of evidence.

Regarding claims about the premature appeal to the court and the existence of a dispute about the right, the Supreme Court stated that the references of the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Odessa region to the absence of grounds for establishing the declared fact in a separate proceeding due to the applicant’s failure to use the pre-trial procedure for acquiring Ukrainian citizenship by territorial origin, as well as the existence of a dispute about the right, are unfounded.

The court noted that the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to provide a document confirming her permanent residence in Ukraine because the city of Makiivka is under occupation, and some of the documents requested by the court were not provided precisely due to the inaccessibility of archives.

The Supreme Court also noted that cases concerning the establishment of facts of legal significance fall within the court’s jurisdiction under the following conditions: the facts must have legal significance; establishing the fact is not related to the further resolution of a dispute about the right; the applicant has no other way to obtain or restore a document certifying the relevant fact; current legislation does not provide another out-of-court procedure for establishing legal facts.

Moreover, the Court separately emphasized that objections by a public authority that the fact is not confirmed by proper evidence do not indicate the existence of a dispute about the right.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Odessa region and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.

The court effectively confirmed that if a person cannot confirm the fact of permanent residence with documents due to temporary occupation of the territory, this fact can be established by the court in a separate proceeding. Mere objections by the State Migration Service regarding the sufficiency of evidence do not indicate the existence of a dispute about the right.

Also, read about how after losing her passport in Bakhmut, a woman had to prove the fact of residence in Ukraine as of 1991 through the court: what the Supreme Court decided.

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.