ПІДСУДНІСТЬ ЦИВІЛЬНИХ СПРАВ В УМОВАХ ВОЄННОГО СТАНУ

Abstract

Andronov I. V. Jurisdiction of civil cases under
martial law. – Article.
The article analyzes the problem of jurisdiction
of civil cases and its changes in cases of courts in the
temporarily occupied territories or territories where
active hostilities are conducted and the restoration of
jurisdiction in the territories liberated from occupation.
Particular attention is paid to the jurisdiction of civil
cases involving internally displaced persons.
It is concluded that from the moment of change of
jurisdiction by the order of the Chairman of the Supreme
Court the work of the relevant court is terminated,
and therefore it cannot consider cases and make any
court decisions in them. In order to maximize the
optimization of the judicial process and the observance
of reasonable time limits for the trial, the «case follows
the judge» approach should be followed, if possible. If
the composition of the court changes when the case is
transferred under the changed jurisdiction, then the
case begins first and in case the court resumes, the case
is not returned to it, and its consideration ends with
the court to which it was transferred due to the change
of jurisdiction. Similarly, cases in which proceedings
have been instituted on the basis of claims (applications,
complaints) submitted directly to the courts under the
changed jurisdiction shall not be transferred to the courts
under the restored jurisdiction, except in cases when they
have been transferred to the transferred judges. Then the
«case follows the judge» approach must also be followed,
and judges return to their permanent jobs with all cases.
If, in connection with hostilities, the occupation
of certain territories has resulted in the loss of legal  proceedings, the resumption of such legal proceedings is
possible only if the proceedings in such cases have been
completed. If the materials of the ongoing proceedings
have been lost, they are not subject to restoration, and
judicial protection of the violated right is possible only by
filing a new lawsuit (statements, complaints).
It is argued that the case-law approach in which a
certificate of registration of an internally displaced
person is not accepted by the courts as a document
confirming the registered residence / stay of the
person for the purpose of determining jurisdiction
is excessively formal and inconsistent access to
justice.