HomeCategoryСудова практика

The client was a minor (the victim of a bully) who suffered from physical actions of another minor (the bully), who studied together at a Kyiv gymnasium.

Criminal proceedings were opened against the bully, which were subsequently closed by the court due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution and the prosecutor’s request for compulsory educational measures was denied.

In civil proceedings, the bully was awarded non-pecuniary damage in the amount of UAH 100,000.00, as well as the costs of legal assistance and a forensic psychological examination.

The case was supported and managed by lawyer Artem Fedosin.

The prosecutor filed a lawsuit in the interests of the state (the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the State Enterprise “Kyiv Forestry”) to reclaim land plots from illegal possession.

The court of first instance dismissed the prosecutor’s claim due to non-compliance with Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, namely, violation of the procedure and lack of grounds for representation.

The Court of Appeal cancelled the decision of the local court, which was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The legal opinion of the Supreme Court in this case:

the prosecutor does not have the authority to conduct cases in the interests of the state-owned enterprise, and the relevant claims are not subject to consideration on the merits. Therefore, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeal in this part should be cancelled, and the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim in part of the prosecutor’s claims in the interests of the State Enterprise Kyiv Forestry without consideration in accordance with paragraph 2 of part one of Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine should be changed.

The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine has introduced restrictions on the Client’s right to leave Ukraine by prohibiting him from crossing the state border of Ukraine until the execution of a court decision on debt collection.

Lawyer Artem Fedosin appealed against the court decision on the travel ban.

…the grounds for imposing a temporary restriction on a person’s right to travel outside Ukraine is the establishment by the court considering the submission of the state enforcement officer of the fact that the debtor has evaded fulfilment of its property obligations to the creditor. Evasion of an obligation is understood to mean such actions or omissions on the part of the debtor that consist of intentional or other deliberate failure to comply with a court decision, provided that the debtor has the opportunity to take actions to comply with the decision and in the absence of objective circumstances that impede compliance. In order to fully and comprehensively clarify all the circumstances of the case, establish the actual rights and obligations of the parties to the disputed legal relationship, the court must determine whether the debtor is actually deliberately evading the fulfilment of the obligation in full or in part.

As a result of the appeal proceedings, the court decision was cancelled and the ban on the Client’s travel abroad was lifted.