Ruling of Supreme Court in the case 990SCCV/123/26 dated 14 September 2026

RULING

14 September 2026

Kyiv

case No. 990SCCV/123/26 proceeding No. 61-333vp26

The Supreme Court, composed of Judge I. Yu. Hulieikov of the Civil Cassation Court, having considered the motion of PERSON_1, on whose behalf representative PERSON_2 acts, for determination of jurisdiction over the motion of PERSON_1 for recognition of a foreign court decision not subject to compulsory enforcement,

ESTABLISHED:

In September 2026, PERSON_1, on whose behalf representative PERSON_2 acts, applied to the Supreme Court with an application requesting determination of jurisdiction over a motion for recognition in the territory of Ukraine of the settlement ruling of 14 May 2025 issued by the Jeju District Court in case No. 2024 Dan 12781, in the part concerning the acknowledgment of paternity of a child, which is not subject to compulsory enforcement.

She states that on 12 August 2024 the Embassy of Ukraine in the Republic of Korea issued a birth certificate for the child PERSON_3, born on INFORMATION_1 in the Republic of Korea, Jeju Province, Jeju City, in respect of which civil status record number 34 was drawn up.

The Jeju District Court considered case No. 2024 Dan 12781, in which the plaintiff is the applicant PERSON_1, the defendant is PERSON_4, and the subject matter of the dispute is the acknowledgment of paternity of the child PERSON_5, date of birth INFORMATION_1. Following consideration of the case, on 14 May 2025 a mediation protocol was adopted, which was approved by the settlement ruling in case No. 2024 Dan 12781 adopted by the Jeju District Court on 14 May 2025.

The applicant now needs to amend the birth record of the child PERSON_6, INFORMATION_2, in the part concerning the determination (establishment) of the child's father and the entry of a record of the father, replacing the record “PERSON_7”, a citizen of Ukraine, with the father determined in the settlement ruling of the Jeju District Court of 14 May 2025.

PERSON_1 is a citizen of Ukraine and has a registered place of residence in Ukraine at: ADDRESS_1, which territorially falls within the jurisdiction of the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv.

The applicant states that she is a citizen of Ukraine and has a registered place of residence in Ukraine, but permanently stays and lives together with the child in the Republic of Korea at: ADDRESS_2. At the same time, the interested person PERSON_4 is not a citizen of Ukraine, has no place of residence in the territory of Ukraine, and has no property in the territory of Ukraine.

In view of the foregoing, the applicant considers that there are no data or possibility to determine the court having jurisdiction to consider the motion for recognition of a court decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 464 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (the “CPC of Ukraine”), and therefore asks that jurisdiction over the case on the motion of PERSON_1 for recognition of a foreign court decision not subject to compulsory enforcement be assigned to the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv.

The application is to be dismissed for the following reasons.

Pursuant to Article 29 of the CPC of Ukraine, jurisdiction over cases involving citizens of Ukraine where both parties reside outside Ukraine, as well as cases on dissolution of marriage between a citizen of Ukraine and a foreigner or stateless person residing outside Ukraine, is determined by a judge of the Supreme Court, designated in the manner provided for by Article 33 of this Code, sitting alone.

According to the content of this legal provision, the Supreme Court has the power to determine jurisdiction over a specific case involving parties residing outside Ukraine. A necessary condition for determining jurisdiction over a case is the filing of a claim indicating the place of residence of the parties and evidence that both parties reside outside Ukraine.

As appears from the content of the application, PERSON_1 asks the Supreme Court to determine jurisdiction over a motion for recognition in the territory of Ukraine of the settlement ruling of 14 May 2025 issued by the Jeju District Court in case No. 2024 Dan 12781, in the part concerning the acknowledgment of paternity of a child.

The procedure for filing and considering a motion for recognition of a foreign court decision not subject to compulsory enforcement is determined by Chapters 1 and 2 of Section IX of the CPC of Ukraine.

In particular, pursuant to Article 472(1) of the CPC of Ukraine, a motion for recognition of a foreign court decision not subject to compulsory enforcement is filed by an interested person with the court in the manner established by Articles 464-466 of this Code for filing a motion for leave to compulsorily enforce a foreign court decision, taking into account the specifics determined by this chapter.

According to Article 464(1) and (2) of the CPC of Ukraine, the question of granting leave to compulsorily enforce a foreign court decision is considered by the court at the place of residence (stay) or location of the debtor. If the debtor has no place of residence (stay) or location in the territory of Ukraine, or its place of residence (stay) or location is unknown, the question of granting leave to compulsorily enforce a foreign court decision is considered by the court at the location in Ukraine of the debtor's property.

A motion for leave to compulsorily enforce a foreign court decision is filed with the court directly by the judgment creditor (its representative) or, in accordance with an international treaty the binding nature of which has been consented to by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by another person (its representative). If international treaties the binding nature of which has been consented to by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine provide for the filing of a motion for leave to compulsorily enforce a foreign court decision through state authorities of Ukraine, the court accepts for consideration a motion received through a state authority of Ukraine (Article 465(1) and (2) of the CPC of Ukraine).

Thus, jurisdiction over the consideration of a motion for recognition of a foreign court decision not subject to compulsory enforcement is determined by Chapters 1 and 2 of Section IX of the CPC of Ukraine and cannot be an alternative to determining such jurisdiction under Article 29 of the CPC of Ukraine.

In these circumstances, the Supreme Court has concluded that the requirements of Article 29 of the CPC of Ukraine are not applicable to determining jurisdiction over a motion for recognition of a foreign court decision not subject to compulsory enforcement.

Guided by Article 29 of the CPC of Ukraine,

RULED:

To refuse to grant the motion of PERSON_1, on whose behalf representative PERSON_2 acts, for determination of jurisdiction over the motion of PERSON_1 for recognition of a foreign court decision not subject to compulsory enforcement.

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

Judge|I. Yu. Hulieikov |