Lack of access to a lawyer is a valid reason for missing deadlines, – SC

During their service, military personnel may be stationed in remote, including dangerous, places where there is no access to lawyers or other legal resources, which limits the possibility of timely recourse to the courts.

This was stated by the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in its decision of 29.11.2024 (case No. 120/359/24).

A person filed a lawsuit to declare unlawful and cancel the decision of the Pension Fund's management to refuse to grant an early retirement pension. The court of first instance (with which the appeal subsequently agreed) returned the claim without consideration due to the missed deadline for filing. The courts proceeded from the premise that the plaintiff's military service could not be considered a valid reason, as this circumstance arose much later than the start of the time limit for filing a lawsuit, and the plaintiff's military unit was located in an area that was not a war zone.

When reviewing the case, the Supreme Court agreed that the mere fact of martial law in Ukraine cannot be considered a valid reason for the extension of the time limit. At the same time, the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the plaintiff was a combatant and was mobilized in the first wave. These circumstances indicate that the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court for the protection of his rights for valid reasons and are the basis for the court to renew the deadlines set by part two of Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.

In deciding this case, the panel of judges of the Supreme Court formed a legal opinion on the application of the provisions of Articles 122 and 123 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in legal relations in which the missed procedural deadline is related to mobilization. A person's military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine may be the basis for renewal of the term of appeal to the court for several reasons related to the special status of military personnel and the nature of their service:

1. Restrictions on access to legal aid: during their service, servicemen may be stationed in remote, including dangerous, locations where there is no access to lawyers or other legal resources, which limits the possibility of timely recourse to court.
2. Performance of service duties: military personnel, especially under martial law, are often in a state where it is physically or psychologically impossible to engage in private matters, including initiating litigation.
3. The time factor: participation of a serviceman in long-term operations, exercises or business trips may make it impossible to comply with the time limit for filing a lawsuit, as defined by the procedural law.
4. Respect for the special status of servicemen: Given that servicemen perform an important function of protecting the state, legislation and court practice should take into account the circumstances related to military service as a valid reason for extending the time limit.
5. The state's obligation to ensure the implementation of the principle of equal access to justice: military service can significantly complicate the exercise of this right, and therefore, in order to properly ensure this principle, it can be recognized as an objective reason for missing the procedural deadline.

In view of the foregoing, the Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and sent the case back to the court of first instance for further consideration.