1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit filed by a mother against the deceased’s wife to remove obstacles to the burial by obliging the defendant to bury the urn with ashes at a cemetery (columbarium) according to Christian rites, given that the defendant has been keeping the ashes at home for an extended period.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that although the law does not explicitly establish time limits for the interment of an urn with ashes, keeping ashes at home indefinitely without objective reasons may violate the relatives’ rights to honor the memory of the deceased.
– The Court stressed that the right to burial is not limited to cremation alone but includes the obligation to complete the procedure by placing the ashes into a grave or columbarium niche, which corresponds to the principles of respectful treatment of the body as enshrined in Article 298 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
– A balance of interests is essential: the court must verify whether the defendant’s actions constitute an interference with the mother’s right to respect for family life, taking into account the religious beliefs of the deceased and the lack of access for relatives to the location of the ashes.
– The Court noted that the appellate instance erroneously limited itself to a formalistic approach, failing to examine whether the prolonged retention of the urn in an apartment complies with reasonable timeframes and whether it violates the rights of other family members.
– The Supreme Court pointed to the necessity of applying the principle of *jura novit curia* (“the court knows the law”), which obliges the court to independently seek an effective method of protection, even if the plaintiff has not chosen it with perfect precision.
– **Conclusion:** The Supreme Court effectively departed from a narrow interpretation of the provisions of the Law “On Burial and Funeral Business,” indicating that the absence of a clear deadline in the law does not imply the absence of an obligation to complete the burial, and that courts must assess the “reasonableness” of such timeframes in each specific case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal for a proper examination of the balance of the parties’ interests.
