1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The applicant filed a petition with the court requesting to be relieved of her duties as a guardian of her legally incapacitated son and to appoint her other son, who is currently performing military service, as the guardian.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the applicant has the right to be relieved of guardianship duties due to health reasons, which was granted.
* Regarding the appointment of a new guardian, the court emphasized that the primary criterion is to ensure the best interests of the legally incapacitated person, who requires constant third-party care due to severe intellectual disability.
* The court established that the candidate for guardianship is performing military service in a different location, which objectively makes it impossible for him to provide daily care for the ward.
* The Supreme Court in this case departed from its previous position, noting that the fact of mobilization in itself is not an automatic ground for refusal to appoint a guardian; however, the court is obligated to evaluate the person’s actual ability to perform the functions of a guardian, rather than merely their formal compliance with legal requirements.
* The court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian must take into account the person’s ability to provide domestic conditions and medical treatment for the ward, which the mobilized candidate cannot guarantee at this time.
* Consequently, until the possibility of providing actual care arises, the court rightfully vested the duties of the guardian in the guardianship and custodianship authority.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the applicant was relieved of her guardianship duties, but the appointment of her son, a military serviceman, as the guardian was denied for the time being.
