1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of staying appellate proceedings in a case regarding the change of the method of alimony collection for a minor child due to the defendant’s military service.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court in this case departed from the previous formal approach to the application of Clause 2 of Part 1 of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which required the mandatory stay of proceedings if a party is a member of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that a child’s constitutional rights to maintenance and the right to judicial protection are fundamental values that cannot be limited even under martial law. The Supreme Court noted that the imperative stay of proceedings in “alimony” cases creates a disproportionate restriction on access to justice and ignores the “best interests of the child” principle. The Court underscored that a delay in resolving such disputes effectively leads to the “loss” of a child’s right to timely maintenance. Consequently, the Court decided not to apply a provision of procedural law that contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine and directly applied Articles 8, 51, and 55 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also initiated a procedure to appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the constitutionality of the aforementioned provision of the Civil Procedure Code in cases related to the protection of children’s rights.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court on staying the proceedings, and remanded the case to the appellate court for continuation of the hearing on the merits.
