The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of returning an appeal filed by a combat veteran due to their failure to pay the court fee in a case concerning a prosecutor\u2019s claim for the seizure of a land plot granted to them as a benefit.<\/p>\n
In its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that legislation on the status of war veterans guarantees combat veterans an exemption from the payment of court costs in cases related to their social protection. The Court emphasized that the right to receive a land plot is one such benefit; therefore, appealing a decision on its seizure directly concerns the social rights of a veteran. It is important that the Court underscored that the status of a combat veteran entitles one to an exemption from court fees regardless of whether such a person acts as a plaintiff or a defendant. The appellate court erred by taking a formalistic approach to the issue and failing to take into account the specifics of the applicant’s legal status. As a result, the Supreme Court applied the legal position set forth in the ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated June 22, 2026, which expands guarantees for veterans in judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court in this case effectively consolidated the position of the Joint Chamber, which is mandatory for consideration and departs from the narrow interpretation of norms on exemption from court fees that could previously have limited the rights of veterans acting as defendants.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance to continue proceedings from the stage of deciding on the opening of appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n