1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery of material and moral damages caused as a result of a traffic accident from the liable party and the insurance company.
2. **Court’s reasoning:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to stay proceedings for military personnel is an important guarantee that ensures their right to a fair trial and adversarial process. The Court noted that the appellate instance demonstrated “excessive formalism” by refusing to stay the consideration of the case due to a supposedly “outdated” certificate of military service. The Supreme Court underscored that the court’s obligation to stay proceedings is imperative, rather than discretionary, if a person is objectively deprived of the ability to participate in the proceedings due to the performance of combat missions. It was also pointed out that the appellate court should have requested updated evidence or provided a reasonable timeframe for its submission, instead of hastily rendering a decision. It is significant that the new service certificate reached the court just two days after the ruling was issued, which confirmed the validity of the defendant’s motion. Thus, the violation of the serviceman’s procedural rights became the key factor for overturning the appellate decision.
3. **Court’s ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case for new consideration to the court of the appellate instance.
**Note:** In this decision, the Supreme Court refers to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated November 12, 2025, in case No. 754/947/22, which establishes mandatory rules regarding the application of Clause 2, Part 1, Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (stay of proceedings in connection with military service) and emphasizes the inadmissibility of excessive formalism in such matters.
