The Supreme Court clarified the procedure for the allocation of court costs in cases filed by a prosecutor in the interests of the state

The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, clarified the procedure for the allocation of court costs in cases initiated by a prosecutor in the interests of the state. The Court concluded that if a party mistakenly identifies the person from whom it seeks to recover costs for professional legal assistance, this alone is not grounds for refusal to reimburse those costs. In such a case, the court must determine the proper subject on whom the relevant costs should be imposed.

Case Summary

The head of the Left Bank District Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Dnipro, acting in the interests of the state represented by the Dnipro City Council, filed a lawsuit to reclaim an apartment for the benefit of the territorial community.

The prosecutor’s office stated that documents confirming the transfer of the apartment into private ownership through privatization were absent, and state registration of ownership rights for this property had not been carried out. At the same time, the apartment was registered to the communal production housing repair and maintenance enterprise of the Samarskyi district based on decisions of the executive committee of the Dnipro City Council.

During the investigation, it was established that ownership rights to the apartment were registered based on a purchase and sale agreement concluded in December 2020. The seller referred to a purchase and sale agreement dated November 26, 1999, allegedly certified by a state notary. However, according to information from the State Notarial Archive, such an agreement was not certified by a notary, and the registry number indicated was used for other notarial acts concerning other persons. It was also established that persons registered in the apartment had not participated in the relevant transactions.

In January 2021, the apartment was alienated under a subsequent purchase and sale agreement and transferred to the ownership of the last acquirer.

The prosecutor believed that none of the participants in the mentioned transactions had legal grounds to acquire ownership rights to the disputed apartment. Based on these circumstances, a criminal proceeding was initiated under Part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In this regard, the prosecutor requested the apartment to be reclaimed for the benefit of the territorial community of the city of Dnipro.

Court Decisions

The Samarskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk denied the claim. The Dnipro Appellate Court left this decision unchanged.

After the completion of the appellate review, the defendant filed a motion to issue an additional ruling on the allocation of court costs for professional legal assistance.

The Dnipro Appellate Court denied the motion, stating that the claim and the appellate complaint were filed by the prosecutor in the interests of the state represented by the Dnipro City Council, and therefore there were no grounds to recover costs for professional legal assistance specifically from the city council.

In the cassation appeal, the applicant emphasized that the court unjustifiably refused to allocate court costs, did not assess the evidence of their incurrence, and incorrectly applied the provisions of Articles 137, 141, and 270 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Furthermore, the applicant noted that even if the person from whom court costs were to be recovered was incorrectly identified, the court should have determined the proper subject rather than refusing compensation.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in case No. 206/6259/23 noted that procedural legislation establishes a general procedure for the allocation of court costs between the parties to a dispute, based on the principle of mandatory reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the court decision is made, at the expense of its procedural opponent.

The Court pointed out that representation of the state’s interests by the prosecutor is subsidiary in nature. The state participates in the case through the relevant authorized body, but the prosecutor is an independent subject of court proceedings. If proceedings are initiated by a prosecutor’s claim in the interests of the state represented by the competent authority, such an authority acquires the status of plaintiff, while the prosecutor exercises procedural rights and fulfills procedural duties related to protecting the state’s interests.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor, when applying to the court in the interests of the state, is the subject responsible for paying the court fee and independently exercises rights and fulfills duties related to the allocation of court costs.

The cassation court noted that the appellate court, having established that the claim and appellate complaint were filed by the prosecutor, should have imposed court costs on the proper subject rather than refusing reimbursement solely on the grounds of incorrectly identifying the person from whom the applicant sought to recover them.

According to the Supreme Court, the appellate court’s conclusion about the absence of grounds for issuing an additional ruling is premature and not based on the correct application of procedural law norms.

In view of this, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decision of the Dnipro Appellate Court, and referred the case to the appellate court for further consideration of the motion to issue an additional ruling.

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