Judicial practice on appealing a decision by a person not involved in the case

11/ 02/ 2022

Author: Tatiana Trikoza, lawyer of Dynasty Law & Investment Practitioners are well aware of the procedural mechanisms most often used by representatives to achieve their goal of lengthy proceedings. But the use of procedural diversion is also characteristic of persons who were not parties to the dispute. Such persons, having a possible agreement with a party to the case who has already exhausted all possible deadlines provided by procedural law, sometimes succeed in delaying the entry into force of a court decision. We suggest paying attention to the conclusions in judicial practice, in particular on issues that arise when filing a complaint against a court decision by a person who did not take part in this case and was not involved in the case. Upon receiving a relevant appeal against a court decision, the courts investigate whether a particular dispute violates the rights of the complainant and how, the subjective composition of persons in the chosen way to protect the violated right, the relationship between the parties and so on. The legal position set out in the Supreme Courts ruling is noteworthy № 910/6671/20, which finally gave the opportunity to prevent abuse, namely: which at the time of consideration of the case and the decision of the court is the complainant, or contains a judgment on the rights and obligations of this person in the relevant legal relationship. If the complainant merely states that the impugned decision may affect his rights, interests and responsibilities, such references, based on the above, may not be sufficient and appropriate grounds for consideration, including the appeal. Thus, the complainants only indication of the courts decision on his rights and obligations is not sufficient for the court to consider his complaint on the merits, and applying such arguments with reference to the Supreme Court, the court should be asked to close the case of the uninvolved person. on the basis of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Art. 264 of the Civil Procedure Code

Author: Tatiana Trikoza, lawyer of Dynasty Law & Investment

Practitioners are well aware of the procedural mechanisms most often used by representatives to achieve their goal of lengthy proceedings. But the use of procedural diversion is also characteristic of persons who were not parties to the dispute. Such persons, having a possible agreement with a party to the case who has already exhausted all possible deadlines provided by procedural law, sometimes succeed in delaying the entry into force of a court decision.

We suggest paying attention to the conclusions in judicial practice, in particular on issues that arise when filing a complaint against a court decision by a person who did not take part in this case and was not involved in the case.

Upon receiving a relevant appeal against a court decision, the courts investigate whether a particular dispute violates the rights of the complainant and how, the subjective composition of persons in the chosen way to protect the violated right, the relationship between the parties and so on.

The legal position set out in the Supreme Court’s ruling is noteworthy № 910/6671/20, which finally gave the opportunity to prevent abuse, namely: which at the time of consideration of the case and the decision of the court is the complainant, or contains a judgment on the rights and obligations of this person in the relevant legal relationship. If the complainant merely states that the impugned decision may affect his rights, interests and responsibilities, such references, based on the above, may not be sufficient and appropriate grounds for consideration, including the appeal.

Thus, the complainant’s only indication of the court’s decision on his rights and obligations is not sufficient for the court to consider his complaint on the merits, and applying such arguments with reference to the Supreme Court, the court should be asked to close the case of the uninvolved person. on the basis of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Art. 264 of the Civil Procedure Code