On October 8, 2025, during the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, the Second Senate deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Tetiana Arkhipova.
D
uring the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Oleksandr Vodiannikov, announced that the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint had appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 423.2, paragraph 1 of Article 424.1 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter, the “Code”).
The contested provisions of the Code stipulate that the grounds for reviewing a court decision on the basis of newly discovered circumstances are “circumstances that are essential to the case, which were not established by the court and were not and could not have been known to the person filing the application at the time of the consideration of the case” (paragraph 1 of Article 423.2); an application for review of a court decision, in particular on the basis of newly discovered circumstances, on the grounds specified in paragraph 1 of Article 423.2 of the Code, may be submitted by the parties to the case within thirty days from the date when the person learned or could have learned of the existence of the relevant circumstances (paragraph 1 of Article 424.1).
The content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it indicate the following.
The author of the complaint states that her mother owned a land plot. In July 2021, the first deputy head of the Vinnytsia Region Prosecutor's Office, acting in the interests of the state represented by the Vinnytsia City Council, filed a lawsuit against the applicant's mother, requesting that the obstacles to the exercise by the Vinnytsia City in the person of the Vinnytsia City Council in the manner of cancelling the state registration of private ownership of this land plot with the simultaneous termination of its private ownership and return to the communal ownership of the Vinnytsia City United Territorial Community in the name of the Vinnytsia City Council.
The court of first instance upheld the claim, while the court of appeal issued a new decision denying the claim.
In February 2023, the first deputy head of the Vinnytsia Region Prosecutor's Office filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The applicant's mother died before the cassation proceedings were initiated. Arkhipova Tetiana, as the sole heir, accepted the inheritance, composed of the disputed land plot.
On 3 April 2023, the Supreme Court initiated cassation proceedings and considered the cassation appeal in simplified proceedings without notifying the parties to the case. During the cassation proceedings, Arkhipova Tetiana was not involved in the case as the successor to the respondent.
By a ruling dated 5 February 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which terminated the private ownership rights to the land plot of the applicant's mother.
On 24 February 2025, the subject of the constitutional complaint filed an application with the Supreme Court for a review of the ruling of 5 February 2025 on the basis of newly discovered circumstances. By its ruling of 4 March 2025, the Supreme Court refused to initiate proceedings for review of the decision on the basis of newly discovered circumstances, since, according to paragraph 1 of Article 424.1 of the Code, such an application may only be submitted by the parties to the case.
In the opinion of the author of the complaint, these provisions of the Code restrict her right to judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as they make it impossible for the successor of a party who has withdrawn from the proceedings due to death to file a complaint for review of a court decision on the basis of newly discovered circumstances.
The Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine initiated constitutional proceedings in the case concerning the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 424.1 of the Code and refused to initiate constitutional proceedings concerning the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 423.2 of the Code on the basis of paragraph 4 of Article 62 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” – inadmissibility of the constitutional complaint.
The Judge-Rapporteur also informed that he had sent letters of inquiry to state authorities and experts from scientific establishments with a request to express their positions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
The Court examined the materials of the case and proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session.
The video recording of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website in the Section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.
