1. The subject of the dispute is the application of PERSON_1 for his appointment as a second guardian over his incapacitated sister.
2. The courts of the first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the application, citing the lack of evidence of the impossibility of the incapacitated person’s mother to perform the duties of a guardian, the unsubstantiated submission of the guardianship and custody authority regarding the need to appoint a second guardian, as well as assumptions about the applicant’s possible evasion of mobilization. The appellate court noted that the submission of the guardianship authority is only advisory and should be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the fact that the case was considered by an unauthorized composition of the court, namely, by a judge alone, while according to procedural law, such cases should be considered by a panel of one judge and two jurors. **** The Supreme Court departed from the conclusion regarding the consideration of the case on the appointment of a guardian for an incapacitated person by a judge alone, as stated in the previous ruling.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
