1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging the refusal of the courts of lower instances to replace a party in the case (procedural succession) and to initiate proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances after the completion of the case hearing on the merits.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural succession is derivative of substantive succession and may be carried out at any stage of the judicial process, including the stage of reviewing a decision based on newly discovered circumstances. The courts of first and appellate instances erroneously believed that after the final decision was rendered, the replacement of a party was impossible, thereby effectively depriving the successor of access to justice. The Court stressed that a successor acquires all procedural rights of their predecessor; therefore, they have the right to initiate a review of the case. Accordingly, the court of first instance is obligated to first consider the issue of replacing the party (procedural succession) and only thereafter address the issue of initiating proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances. The Court indicated that a successor to a participant in the case has the right to file an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances, departing from a narrow interpretation according to which only persons who participated in the case at the time of its consideration possess this right. The courts failed to properly examine the evidence of succession and did not clarify whether the applicant is indeed the successor of the persons who held the status of participants in the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remanding the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration and to resolve the issue of initiating proceedings based on the application of the successor.
