Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the lawfulness of staying commercial proceedings regarding the joint and several recovery of loan debt in connection with the military service of one of the defendants (the guarantor).<\/p>\n
2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that a party\u2019s service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine during martial law constitutes an imperative ground for staying the proceedings, as it serves as a special guarantee for the exercise of the right to judicial protection.
\n – The court emphasized that there is no exclusive list of documents to confirm the fact of service; therefore, certificates from military units and officer identification cards constitute proper and admissible evidence, and the requirement to provide exclusively a personnel order is groundless.
\n – An important factor is the expression of will by the service member themselves: if they request a stay of the case due to the impossibility of participating in the proceedings, the court is obligated to do so.
\n – Regarding the bank\u2019s arguments on the severance of claims, the court noted that this is a right, not an obligation of the court, and in this case, severance would not contribute to procedural economy, as the claims against all defendants are based on a joint credit agreement.
\n – The court rejected the arguments regarding the violation of reasonable timeframes and harm to state interests, indicating that procedural guarantees for service members take priority over the interests of a creditor, regardless of the latter\u2019s status.
\n – The Supreme Court in this decision confirmed a departure from its previous position, set forth in the resolution of 29.03.2023 in case No. 756\/3462\/20, regarding the limited list of evidence for military service, relying on the new legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 12.11.2025.<\/p>\n
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the bank\u2019s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling to stay the proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n