Ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal in case 398/2264/21 dated 30 September 2026

KYIV COURT OF APPEAL

Case No. 398/2264/21 Presiding judge at the 1st instance: N.M. Petryshyn

Proceeding No. 22-ts/824/16198/2026 Judge-Rapporteur: V.A. Shebuieva

R U L I N G

30 September 2026 Kyiv

Judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal V.A. Shebuieva, having verified compliance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine in respect of the appeal of PERSON_1 against the ruling of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Oblast of 10 April 2024 granting permission for the compulsory enforcement in the territory of Ukraine of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Dubai of 14 May 2018 in case No. 2166/2017 on the claim of PERSON_2 against PERSON_1 for the recovery of funds,

E S T A B L I S H E D:

By ruling of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Oblast of 10 April 2024, the motion of PERSON_2 for permission for the compulsory enforcement of a foreign court judgment was granted in part. Permission was granted for the compulsory enforcement in the territory of Ukraine of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Dubai of 14 May 2018 in case No. 2166/2017 on the claim of PERSON_2 against PERSON_1 regarding the recovery from PERSON_1 of the sum of AED 3,856,200 and 9% per annum from 29 June 2017 until full repayment of the debt, as well as the costs of legal services in the amount of one thousand UAE dirhams. There was recovered in favour of PERSON_2 UAH 40,952,844, which at the exchange rate of the National Bank of Ukraine on the date of the court ruling is the equivalent of AED 3,856,200, and 9% per annum from 29 June 2017 until full repayment of the debt, as well as the costs of legal services in the amount of UAH 10,620.00, which at the exchange rate of the National Bank of Ukraine on the date of the court ruling is the equivalent of one thousand UAE dirhams.

Disagreeing with the said court ruling, PERSON_1 filed an appeal on 13 August 2026.

Pursuant to Article 354(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an appeal against a court judgment shall be filed within thirty days, and against a court ruling within fifteen days, from the date of its pronouncement.

If only the introductory and operative parts of the court decision were announced at the court session, or where the case (issue) was considered without notification (summoning) of the participants in the case, the said time limit shall be calculated from the date on which the full court decision was drawn up.

Pursuant to Article 354(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a participant in the case who was not served with the full judgment or ruling of the court on the day of its pronouncement or drawing up shall be entitled to the renewal of the missed time limit for appeal: 1) against a court judgment, if the appeal is filed within thirty days from the date of service on him of the full court judgment; 2) against court rulings, if the appeal is filed within fifteen days from the date of service on him of the relevant court ruling.

The time limit for appeal may also be renewed where it was missed for other valid reasons, except in the cases specified in part two of Article 358 of this Code.

As is apparent from the case materials, the contested ruling of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Oblast was issued on 10 April 2024 (case file p. 21).

Accordingly, the last day of the time limit for appealing the ruling of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Oblast of 10 April 2024 fell on 25 April 2024.

PERSON_1 filed the appeal against the said court ruling only on 13 August 2026.

The appellant does not raise the issue of renewal of the time limit for appeal.

The appeal filed does not comply with the requirements of Article 356(2)(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, since it does not specify PERSON_2 and his place of residence or stay.

Furthermore, the appeal does not comply with the requirements of Article 356(4)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, since it is not accompanied by evidence of sending a copy thereof and copies of the attached materials to PERSON_2, having regard to the provisions of Article 43 of this Code.

The appeal does not comply with the requirements of Article 356(4)(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, since PERSON_1 has not attached a document confirming payment of the court fee in the established manner and amount.

In the appeal, PERSON_1 stated that he is exempt from paying the court fee under items 12 and 13 of Article 5(1) of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”, since he is a serviceman and a combatant.

However, such arguments of PERSON_1 are not based on the requirements of the legislation in force.

The legal principles of the levying of the court fee from payers, the objects and rates of the court fee, the procedure for payment, exemption from payment and refund of the court fee are determined by Law of Ukraine No. 3674-VI “On Court Fee”.

Item 12 of Article 5(1) of Law No. 3674-VI provides that servicemen, persons liable for military service and reservists called up for training (or verification) and special musters are exempt from paying the court fee during the consideration of a case in all court instances in cases related to the performance of military duty, as well as during the performance of official duties

Item 13 of Article 5(1) of Law No. 3674-VI provides that combatants, injured participants of the Revolution of Dignity and Heroes of Ukraine are exempt from paying the court fee during the consideration of a case in all court instances in cases related to the violation of their rights.

According to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 12 February 2020 in case No. 545/1149/17, the said provision is of a referential nature and does not contain an exhaustive list of cases in which combatants and persons equated to them are exempt from paying the court fee. The legal status of war veterans and the provision of proper conditions for their livelihood and that of their family members are established by the Law of Ukraine of 22 October 1993 No. 3551-XII “On the Status of War Veterans and Guarantees of Their Social Protection”. Article 22 of that Law provides that persons to whom this regulatory act applies receive free legal aid on matters related to their social protection and are also exempt from court costs related to the consideration of such matters. The list of benefits for combatants and persons equated to them is set out in Article 12 of this Law. Therefore, when deciding on the recovery of the court fee from a person who has the status of a combatant (a person equated to a combatant), in order to apply correctly the provisions of item 13 of part one of Article 5 of Law No. 3674-VI, the court must take into account the subject matter and grounds of the claim and verify whether such case concerns the protection of the rights of these persons, having regard to the provisions of Articles 12 and 22 of Law No. 3551-XII. A similar legal position on the application and interpretation of item 13 of part one of Article 5 of Law No. 3674-VI is set out in the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 9 October 2019 in case No. 9901/311/19 and in the resolution of the Supreme Court in case No. 600/1927/23 of 12 December 2023. At the same time, in its ruling of 11 September 2024 in case No. 567/79/23, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court stated that there were no grounds for departing from the legal conclusions on the application of item 13 of part one of Article 5 of Law No. 3674-VI set out in the said resolutions.

As is apparent from the case materials, the subject matter of the court proceedings in this case is the granting of permission for the compulsory enforcement of a foreign court judgment. This case is not related to the performance by PERSON_1 of military duty or to the violation of his rights as a combatant.

Accordingly, the court fee benefits provided for by items 12 and 13 of part 1 of Article 5 of Law No. 3674-VI do not extend to PERSON_1 in this case.

By virtue of Articles 185 and 357 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the appeal is to be left without movement, with the appellant being granted a time limit for:

filing an application for the renewal of the procedural time limit for appealing the ruling of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Oblast of 10 April 2024, stating the grounds for renewal of the time limit, and remedying the deficiencies of the appeal: providing the original of a document confirming payment of the court fee in the amount of UAH 532.48 to the following details: recipient of funds: GUK u m.Kyievi/Solomian.r-n/22030101; recipient's account No. UA548999980313101206080026010; recipient's code (EDRPOU code) 37993783; recipient's bank: Treasury of Ukraine (el. adm. podat.); recipient's bank code (MFO) - 899998;

providing the appropriate number of copies of the appeal specifying PERSON_2 and his place of residence or stay;

providing evidence of sending a copy of the appeal and the materials attached thereto to PERSON_2, having regard to the provisions of Article 43 of this Code.

Guided by Articles 185 and 357 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the judge

R U L E D:

To leave without movement the appeal of PERSON_1 against the ruling of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Oblast of 10 April 2024 granting permission for the compulsory enforcement in the territory of Ukraine of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Dubai of 14 May 2018 in case No. 2166/2017 on the claim of PERSON_2 against PERSON_1 for the recovery of funds.

To set for the appellant a ten-day time limit from the date of receipt of this ruling for filing an application for the renewal of the procedural time limit for appeal, stating the grounds for renewal of the time limit, and for remedying the deficiencies of the appeal filed.

To explain to the appellant that if an application for the renewal of the time limit for appeal is not filed within the established time limit, or if the stated grounds for renewal of the time limit for appeal are found to be invalid, the court is entitled to refuse to open appellate proceedings.

If the deficiencies are not remedied within the established time limit, the appeal shall be deemed not filed and shall be returned.

The ruling enters into legal force from the moment of its signing and is not subject to appeal.

Judge

of the Kyiv Court of Appeal V.A. Shebuieva