1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the appellate court’s refusal to appoint a grandson as the guardian of his incapacitated grandmother, who requires constant extraneous care.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian is the exclusive competence of the court, and the submission of the guardianship authority is merely advisory in nature and subject to assessment in conjunction with other evidence.
* The Court noted that the list of restrictions for appointing a guardian is exhaustive (Article 64 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), and current legislation does not contain a prohibition on appointing a person of mobilization age or a military serviceman as a guardian.
* The appellate court mistakenly equated the fact of mobilization with an intention to avoid military service duties, without investigating the actual existence of other persons capable of providing guardianship.
* The Supreme Court stressed that the appellate court’s doubts regarding the motivation of the guardianship authority’s submission cannot serve as an independent ground for refusal if these doubts are not supported by evidence of the applicant’s inability to perform the duties of a guardian.
* The Court pointed out the necessity of determining the “best interests” of the ward, which requires a thorough investigation of the candidate’s ability to ensure proper care, rather than a mere formal verification of documents.
* **Legal grounds:** The Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 305/1557/24, which establishes that the mere fact of performing military service is not a ground for refusal to appoint a guardian if there are no other persons capable of providing such care.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s resolution in the part concerning the refusal to appoint a guardian and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a full establishment of the factual circumstances.
