1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the procedure for the use of the apartment between the co-owners.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered the issue of suspension of proceedings in the case on the basis of clause 2 of the first part of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine due to the defendant’s service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine during martial law. The court noted that from the moment martial law is introduced, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are considered to be transferred to a state of war, and evidence of a person’s military service is sufficient to suspend proceedings. At the same time, the court departed from previous conclusions, emphasizing that the key is the expression of will of the serviceman: if he wants the case to be considered in his absence, the court is not obliged to suspend the proceedings. In this case, the court took into account that the defendant asked to consider the case without his participation, but at the same time supported the request to suspend the proceedings, which indicates his intention to take advantage of the protective provisions of the procedural law.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court on the suspension of proceedings – without changes.
