The Supreme Court explained when new facts will not be grounds for reviewing a court decision

Circumstances that arose after the completion of the court proceedings cannot be considered newly discovered and are not grounds for reviewing a court decision that has entered into legal force, even if a party believes that such circumstances confirm its arguments in the dispute.

This conclusion was reached by the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court in a case regarding the review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances in a dispute about the dismissal of a police officer.

Circumstances of case No. 420/13741/20

The plaintiff, who held the position of Deputy Head of the Organizational and Methodological Department of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Odessa region, challenged the National Police orders on the reduction of her position and dismissal from service.

In 2020, organizational and staffing changes were carried out in the National Police, within which a number of positions were reduced, including the plaintiff's position. After that, she was dismissed from service due to staff reductions and organizational measures.

The plaintiff asked the court to recognize the relevant orders as illegal, reinstate her in service, and recover monetary compensation for the period of forced absence.

However, the courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim. They established that the organizational and staffing changes were part of the overall reform of the National Police structure, and the plaintiff was offered vacant positions, including equivalent ones. She refused the proposed transfer, so the courts recognized the dismissal as lawful. Later, the Supreme Court upheld these conclusions without changes.

Why a new dispute arose

In 2024, the National Police approved new staffing changes, which introduced the position of Deputy Head of the Department to the staff of the Organizational and Methodological Department of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Odessa region, a position that had previously been reduced.

The plaintiff believed that this fact confirmed her arguments about the artificial nature of the reduction and the lack of real necessity to eliminate the position. In her opinion, the appearance of the relevant order indicated the groundlessness of the personnel decisions that were the basis for her dismissal.

In view of this, she applied to the court with a motion to review the previous court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances.

The courts of first and appellate instances denied such a motion, after which the case reached the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Cassation Administrative Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances and left the cassation complaint unsatisfied.

The court recalled that newly discovered circumstances can only be facts that are significant to the case, existed at the time of its consideration, but were not and could not have been known to the parties and the court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedure for reviewing court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is not intended for re-examining the dispute or reassessing already established circumstances. Its purpose is to take into account significant facts that objectively existed during the consideration of the case but remained unknown to the participants in the process and the court.

At the same time, new circumstances that arose after the decision was made cannot be considered newly discovered within the meaning of Article 361 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

Legal position

The Supreme Court noted that the National Police order dated April 2, 2024, which the plaintiff referred to, was adopted after the completion of the case consideration by courts of all instances. Accordingly, the circumstances arising from this order did not exist at the time of the contested court decisions.

That is why such an order is a new circumstance, but not a newly discovered one.

The court also refused to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, noting that a clear and consistent judicial practice regarding the understanding of newly discovered circumstances has already been formed in similar legal relations.

Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the refusal to review previously adopted court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances and once again emphasized: the grounds for such review can only be circumstances that existed during the initial consideration of the case but were unknown to the court and participants in the process.

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.