The UNBA cautioned against narrowing the grounds for granting a preliminary injunction in cassation proceedings

During a cassation review of decisions rendered on procedural matters, it may become necessary to grant a provisional remedy if the relevant rulings impede the further proceedings in the case. Failure to take these situations into account carries the risk of limiting the right to an effective judicial remedy.

At the request of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on legal policy, the UNBA Committee on commercial law and procedure analyzed Draft Law No. 15163 dated April 9, 2026 No. 15163 «On amendments to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the regulatory framework for certain issues of securing a claim» and prepared comments and proposals.

The draft law proposes to amend the Commercial Procedural Code and the Civil Procedural Code to provide that a motion for provisional relief shall be filed with the court of cassation only in the event of a cassation appeal against a ruling of the appellate court issued following an appellate review of the first-instance court’s decision on the merits of the case. An application for provisional relief filed with the court of cassation, in the event of a cassation appeal against decisions rendered on procedural issues, shall be left without consideration by the court.

The advocates pointed out that this approach carries a high risk of restricting the right to an effective judicial remedy. After all, some decisions are formally rendered on procedural matters but, in effect, are final for the specific proceeding and conclude the case without resolving the dispute on the merits; for example: If the appellate court leaves the relevant rulings unchanged, they may be separately appealed to the court of cassation.

• to return the complaint to the plaintiff;
• on refusal to initiate proceedings;
• on dismissal of the case;
• on dismissal of the claim without consideration.

In such situations, the plaintiff may have an objective need for provisional relief, in particular to prevent the defendant from disposing of property or taking other actions that could complicate or render impossible the enforcement of a future decision.

Therefore, the UNBA has proposed revising the wording of the draft law and expanding its scope to cover all cases of cassation review of decisions that conclude the consideration of the case on its merits or that prevent further proceedings in the case. The institution of counter-security should serve as a procedural safeguard against abuse in this context.