Can the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center Appeal a Decision on Sole Child Rearing That Served as a Basis for Deferral

The Chernivtsi Appellate Court annulled the decision establishing the fact of sole child rearing by the father and sent the case for a new hearing.

The court concluded that the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) has the right to appeal such decisions if they directly affect the issue of granting a deferral from mobilization.

Furthermore, the appellate court emphasized the need to clarify the applicant's purpose for filing and to assess all circumstances of the case.

Case Circumstances

In June 2024, a father of two minor children filed a lawsuit to establish the fact that he solely raises and supports his son and daughter. He stated that after the termination of family relations, the children live with him and are fully supported by him, and that establishing this legal fact was necessary to obtain state assistance for children raised by one parent.

The Pershotravnevyi District Court of Chernivtsi satisfied the claim and established the fact of sole child rearing and support by the father.

According to the case materials, after the decision became legally binding, the applicant applied to the TRSSC for a deferral from conscription during mobilization and received it based on this court decision pursuant to paragraph 4 of part one of article 23 of the Law "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization." Subsequently, the TRSSC, which was not involved in the case, filed an appeal.

Appellate Court's Position

The appellate court first considered whether the TRSSC had the right to appeal a decision made without its participation.

The panel of judges noted that although the TRSSC was not a party to the case, the district court's decision directly affected its rights and obligations as the body responsible for deciding on granting deferrals from conscription. Therefore, the TRSSC has the right to appeal such a decision.

The court pointed out that establishing the fact of sole child rearing today can be a legal basis for obtaining a deferral from mobilization or exemption from military service. Thus, such cases go beyond purely private family legal relations and may affect the state's interests in the mobilization sphere.

The appellate court also referred to the Supreme Court's practice, according to which private-law mechanisms should not be used to create legal grounds aimed at evading public duties or creating prejudicial decisions for public-law relations. At the same time, the appellate court did not give a final assessment of the applicant's behavior but indicated that during the new hearing, it is necessary to clarify the purpose of the court application and assess all circumstances of the case.

Why the First Instance Decision Was Overturned

After recognizing the TRSSC's right to appeal, the appellate court found that the first instance court's decision was made in violation of territorial jurisdiction rules. According to article 378 of the Civil Procedure Code, such a violation is an unconditional ground for annulment of the decision and referral of the case for a new hearing under proper jurisdiction.

The applicant filed the claim at the court based on his actual place of residence, referring to a housing lease agreement. However, the Civil Procedure Code provides that claims to establish facts of legal significance must be filed at the person's registered place of residence.

Case materials 725/5079/24 showed that the applicant's registered place of residence was within the jurisdiction of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi, not the Pershotravnevyi District Court.

The appellate court emphasized that the registered place of residence or registered place of stay is decisive for determining territorial jurisdiction, while actual residence without proper registration cannot determine the competent court.

Points to Consider During the New Hearing

The appellate court also noted that during the new hearing it is necessary to verify whether there is a dispute between the parents regarding participation in child rearing.

If such a dispute is established, this may be grounds to leave the claim without consideration in a separate proceeding. Additionally, the court must assess the applicant's purpose in filing the claim to establish a legal fact and examine other circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.

Court Decision

The Chernivtsi Appellate Court partially satisfied the TRSSC's appeal, annulled the decision of the Pershotravnevyi District Court of Chernivtsi, and sent the civil case for a new hearing under proper territorial jurisdiction to the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi. The ruling took legal effect from the date of adoption and may be appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court within 30 days.

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