Ukrainians will turn to the courts in masses to demand compensation for damage caused by military aggression, directly from the Russian Federation and to the state of Ukraine – regarding the provision of their rights in connection with Russian aggression, the Supreme Court noted.
“Most of all we expect cases of compensation for damage caused by military aggression. Here it is necessary to separate two categories of such cases. In terms of defendants, these disputes are brought against both the Russian Federation and the state of Ukraine,” Boris Gulko, chairman of the Cassation Civil Court, said at a press conference Friday.
He explained that in the first case, citizens raise the issue of damages from the Russian Federation, while lawsuits against Ukraine are filed because the state failed to ensure the safety, health and life, and safety of their property.
“We have repeatedly confirmed in our court decisions the position that the rf has no judicial immunity on the territory of Ukraine during the military aggression. The decision states that there is no immunity since February 2014, when the territories of Donbass and Crimea were actually occupied,” he noted.
Gulko stressed that the citizens of Ukraine filed lawsuits against the Russian Federation for compensation for property and moral damages.
“Also, the court expressed its position on the appeals of citizens to the state of Ukraine in connection with the destruction of property or damage due to the loss of life…. The state of Ukraine is not responsible for this, because these actions were committed by the rf, but the state of Ukraine by all possible means contributes to the compensation of material and moral damage”, – he said.
The Chairman of the Civil Court of Cassation explained that the actions of the state of Ukraine in this context relate to the creation of appropriate registries, looking for the possibility of redress through international mechanisms.
“We have not yet received any cases that the state of Ukraine has not taken any measures in relation to ensuring the safety of citizens,” the chairman of the Civil Court of Cassation stressed.
He also noted that with the war, disputes over children and communication with them became frequent as parents took their children abroad.
“With the court decisions that come to the Court of Cassation Civil Court, we actually form the practice. In particular, one of the last decisions was that the state executor does not have the right to change the way parents communicate with their child,” he said.
According to Gulko, the case concerned the way of communication between father and child, whom the mother had taken abroad. According to the decision of the bailiff, the method of communication with the child can be through the Internet and messengers. “We said with our decision that the state bailiff does not have the power to change the way the decision is enforced. This can only be done by the relevant court on the presentation of the bailiff,” explained Gulko.
