{"id":18947,"date":"2026-08-10T10:09:31","date_gmt":"2026-08-10T07:09:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/08\/case-no-713-4454-24-dated-08-05-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-08-10T10:09:31","modified_gmt":"2026-08-10T07:09:31","slug":"case-no-713-4454-24-dated-08-05-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/08\/case-no-713-4454-24-dated-08-05-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 713\/4454\/24 dated 08\/05\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the appellate court&#8217;s refusal to appoint a grandson as the guardian of his incapacitated grandmother, who requires constant extraneous care.<\/p>\n<p>2. **Court arguments:**<br \/>\n* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian is the exclusive competence of the court, and the submission of the guardianship authority is merely advisory in nature and subject to assessment in conjunction with other evidence.<br \/>\n* The Court noted that the list of restrictions for appointing a guardian is exhaustive (Article 64 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), and current legislation does not contain a prohibition on appointing a person of mobilization age or a military serviceman as a guardian.<br \/>\n* The appellate court mistakenly equated the fact of mobilization with an intention to avoid military service duties, without investigating the actual existence of other persons capable of providing guardianship.<br \/>\n* The Supreme Court stressed that the appellate court&#8217;s doubts regarding the motivation of the guardianship authority&#8217;s submission cannot serve as an independent ground for refusal if these doubts are not supported by evidence of the applicant&#8217;s inability to perform the duties of a guardian.<br \/>\n* The Court pointed out the necessity of determining the &#8220;best interests&#8221; of the ward, which requires a thorough investigation of the candidate&#8217;s ability to ensure proper care, rather than a mere formal verification of documents.<br \/>\n* **Legal grounds:** The Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 305\/1557\/24, which establishes that the mere fact of performing military service is not a ground for refusal to appoint a guardian if there are no other persons capable of providing such care.<\/p>\n<p>3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court&#8217;s resolution in the part concerning the refusal to appoint a guardian and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a full establishment of the factual circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/138787733\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the appellate court&#8217;s refusal to appoint a grandson as the guardian of his incapacitated grandmother, who requires constant extraneous care. 2. **Court arguments:** * The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian is the exclusive competence of the court, and the submission of the guardianship authority is&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}