ON THE CONDITIONS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CASES ON ESTABLISHING FACTS WITH LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN A SEPARATE PROCEDURE

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the specific issues concerning the conditions under which cases for establishing facts that hold legal significance are subject to review in civil proceedings in a separate manner. The study reviews relevant legislation, doctrinal approaches, and judicial practice related to the judicial establishment of facts with legal importance. It identifies the scope of conditions that permit such cases to be considered in civil proceeding, specifically within a separate process. According to civil procedural law, other legal facts–those that influence the emergence, modification, or cessation of personal or property rights of individuals–may also be examined in civil proceedings if legislation does not prescribe a different method for their establishment. Furthermore, due to the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, there has been a necessity for individuals to seek legal protection of their rights connected with this regime. This has created a need to establish additional legal facts through judicial process, such as the fact of forced displacement resulting from Russia’s armed aggression. Based on legal norms and judicial jurisprudence–particularly the practices of the Supreme Court– it has been determined which legal facts are not subject to review in civil proceedings. Examples include establishing the fact of detention by occupation authorities, the fact of disability group and its onset time, incapacity for military service with removal from military registration, or the fact confirming the right to a dwelling or its exchange. Therefore, it must be emphasized that only those facts that meet specific conditions and possess legal significance can be considered in civil proceedings in a separate process. These facts must be actual, not merely legal, and their purpose must be clearly articulated; their establishment must be independent of any dispute over rights (i.e., no underlying controversy). Additionally, there should be no other means available to establish the fact, and current legislation must not envisage an alternative extrajudicial procedure for its establishment.