Can the court return a claim if the defendant's place of registration is unknown – the Supreme Court's position

The inability to establish the defendant's official registration through state databases does not allow the court to return the claim. The court must open proceedings in the case at the defendant's last known address, ensuring notification through the judicial authority's web portal.

This conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court sitting as a panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.

In the reviewed case, the plaintiff filed a claim for divorce, indicating the last known address of the husband's residence. She noted that since 2018 she has not communicated with her husband and cannot obtain an official certificate of his registration due to legislative restrictions on personal data protection.

The court of first instance returned the claim to the plaintiff because she did not provide evidence of the defendant's property location or his last registered place of residence to confirm jurisdiction. The appellate court agreed with the district court's conclusion, reasoning that the obligation to provide such evidence lies with the parties, and their absence raises doubts about jurisdiction.

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case back to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of opening proceedings, making the following legal conclusions.

Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, which will decide disputes over their civil rights and obligations (Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).

Procedural norms are intended to ensure the proper administration of justice and adherence to the principle of legal certainty, as well as to guarantee the parties the right to expect these norms to be applied. The principle of legal certainty applies not only to the parties but also to national courts (see DIYA 97 v. UKRAINE, No. 19164/04, § 47, ECHR, October 21, 2010).

Claims against a defendant whose place of residence or registration is unknown are filed at the location of the defendant's property or at the last known registered place of residence, stay, or permanent occupation (work) (Part 9, Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

To determine jurisdiction, the judge may also use data from the Unified State Demographic Register (Part 8, Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

In the absence of grounds to leave the claim without movement, return the claim, or refuse to open proceedings, the court opens proceedings within five days from the date of receipt of the claim or the application to remedy deficiencies, submitted in the manner prescribed by Article 185 of this Code. If the defendant is a natural person who does not have the status of an entrepreneur, the court opens proceedings no later than the next day after receiving information about the registered place of residence (stay) of the defendant in the manner prescribed by law (Part 1, Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

If the information received by the court does not allow establishing the registered place of residence (stay) of the natural person, the court decides on opening proceedings. Further summons of such a person as a defendant in the case is carried out by announcement on the official web portal of the judicial authority of Ukraine (Part 10, Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

Thus, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural law provides only two options if the defendant's address is not found: either transfer the case to another court (if another address is known) or open proceedings if the place of residence cannot be established. Returning the claim because registries do not contain information about the defendant's place of registration is a violation of the law.

The cassation court clarified the imperative procedure: according to Part 10, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, if official registry information does not allow establishing the person's place of registration, the court is obliged to decide on opening proceedings, not returning the claim. In this case, the law provides a clear mechanism – summoning the defendant by announcement on the official web portal of the judicial authority of Ukraine.

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court also stressed that the principle of reasonableness is inherent in the interpretation of procedural norms, and the right to a court cannot be limited by requirements that the plaintiff is objectively unable to fulfill. Imposing on a citizen the obligation to provide evidence to which they do not have access due to personal data protection legislation leads to a deadlock and violates Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Resolution of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 20, 2026, in case No. 199/15273/25 (proceeding No. 61-4965sv26).

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