UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
UNHCR Comments on the Draft Law of Ukraine on
Granting Protection to Foreigners and Stateless Persons
January 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
UNHCR Ukraine Legislative Updates (January 2020)
January 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
UNHCR Ukraine Legislative Updates (December 2019)
December 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
The Supreme Court Resolution of 20 November 2019
On 26 December 2019, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case concerning the registration of the fact of death having occurred in Donetsk NGCA. The application was submitted along with the claim for the accumulated pension debt of a deceased husband. There was no decision regarding the accumulated pension debt, since the first step concerned registration of the fact of death that occurred in the NGCA and exemption from the court fee. In its decision the Supreme Court interprets a complex legal rule which regulates the exemption from court fees in cases establishing legal facts (birth, death, marriage etc.) “that were submitted to the court in connection with armed aggression, armed conflict, temporary occupation and resulted in internal displacement, wounds, captivity or violated property rights”. The Court insisted that such exemption should be granted only if an application is submitted in relation to an armed conflict (e.g. death due to shelling or wounds), while in the present case recognition of the fact of death is related to the issue of pension. In addition to this, the Court stated that in cases related to the registration of the fact of death of those who went missing or dead during the ATO/JFO but on reasons not directly related to hostilities, the applicants are obliged to pay court fees, but may request their reimbursement. 20 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal armed conflict - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine |
UNHCR Ukraine Legislative Updates (November 2019)
November 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
UNHCR Ukraine Legislative Updates (October 2019)
October 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
The Supreme Court Resolution of 4 September 2019
On 4 September 2019, the Supreme Court adopted its Resolution with regard to compensation for destroyed commercial premises caused by acts of terrorism. On 4 November 2016, the applicant referred to a first-instance court, requesting a compensation for her commercial premises destroyed during the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Mariupol. The main argumentation was based on the lack of a special order regulating payment of compensation for the ATO consequences in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and applicability of relevant European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. A first-instance court stated that Ukraine should compensate damages/destructions caused by an act of terrorism from the State Budget funds irrespective of Ukraine’s culpability. Simultaneously, the state preserves the right of recourse claim on reimbursing compensation from those liable for acts of terrorism. The Court of Appeals supported this decision. The Supreme Court stated that under Protocol 1 to the European Human Rights Convention an applicant has a right to claim compensation for her damaged or destroyed property irrespective of the fact that the national legal framework on compensatory mechanism is non-existent. It underlined that there is a need to clarify which obligations of the state were violated. Non-fulfilment of positive obligations (introducing a legal framework to ensure that property right violated in the course of the conflict may be effectively protected) or negative obligations (which requires non-interference with the peaceful ownership) will result in the different level of compensation. Since the decisions of lower instance courts did not clarify which particular obligations of the state (positive or negative) were violated, the Supreme Court re-submitted this case to a first-instance court for re-examination. 4 September 2019 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Terrorism - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine |
UNHCR Ukraine Legislative Updates (September 2019)
September 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Ukraine: Order No. 363, on the Approval of the Procedure for Consideration of Applications of Foreigners and Stateless Persons for Extension of Stay in Ukraine
28 August 2019 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation |
UNHCR Ukraine Legislative Updates (August 2019)
August 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |