A violation of rights and interests is a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit

In a state governed by the rule of law, judicial protection is one of the most effective means of safeguarding rights and freedoms. However, is it possible to seek judicial protection for any rights or interests?

Indeed, every person has the right to protect their rights or interests. At the same time, one of the main conditions for filing a lawsuit is not only the existence of rights or interests but also their violation, non-recognition, or contestation at the time the lawsuit is filed. In this article, we will examine in more detail the violation of rights and interests as a mandatory condition for filing a lawsuit.

Establishing the Fact of a Violation of a Right or Interest

Before filing a lawsuit, it is necessary to establish exactly how and by whom the rights or legitimate interests that the individual wishes to protect are being violated. 

A violation of civil rights, for example, may manifest itself, among other things, in the parties’ failure to comply with legal requirements at the time a legal transaction is entered into; the dissemination of false information about a person; the unlawful deprivation of property rights; the infliction of property damage or emotional distress on a person; and so on.

At the same time, there are cases of premature filing of a lawsuit, when the right or interest has not yet been violated at the time the claim is filed. For example, individuals who are warned of an impending dismissal often challenge such a warning in court. However, the court cannot grant such a claim, since the individual’s right to work—who, at the time of filing the lawsuit, has not yet been dismissed and continues to perform their job—has not been violated. 

In considering a similar case, the Supreme Court held that, given the grounds and content of the claims, the effective means of protecting the right that the plaintiff considers to have been violated is to challenge the dismissal order and seek reinstatement. (Ruling of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated April 11, 2024, in Case No. 127/29246/22)

In another case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to challenge interim decisions adopted as part of the procedure for transferring a property complex to the management of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. However, the Supreme Court concluded that such decisions, in and of themselves, do not result in a violation of the plaintiff’s rights or interests and, therefore, cannot be the independent subject of a judicial appeal. Given the objective absence of legal consequences in the form of a violation of the plaintiff’s rights and interests, the Court deemed the petition to the court premature and found that there was no legal dispute. (Ruling of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court dated February 21, 2024, in Case No. 160/4029/23)

Thus, the protection of rights or interests through judicial proceedings is possible only if, at the time of filing the lawsuit, the relevant right or interest has already been violated. 

For example, when challenging decisions, actions, or inaction by a public authority, the statement of claim must explicitly set forth the grounds for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights or interests. It is important that the violation of rights not be abstract. The plaintiff’s mere disagreement with, for example, the contested decision, does not in itself constitute a violation of a right.

In Case No. 320/5934/22, the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court stated that a mandatory condition for the court to grant legal protection is the existence of a corresponding violation by a public authority of a person’s rights, freedoms, or interests at the time the person files a claim with the court. Thus, such a violation must be real, well-founded, and relate to (affect) the individual rights or interests of the plaintiff as alleged by the defendant, who claims that they have been violated. The absence of a violated right or the inconsistency of the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff with the methods prescribed by law is determined during the consideration of the case on its merits and constitutes grounds for the court to dismiss the claim. (Ruling of the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated February 13, 2024, in Case No. 320/5934/22)

In other words, the violation must consist of demonstrating a negative impact on specific, actual, and individually expressed rights or interests.

The Cassation Commercial Court of the Supreme Court holds a similar position, noting that a necessary condition for the court to apply a specific remedy is the existence of a corresponding subjective right (interest) on the part of the plaintiff and the fact of a violation (non-recognition or challenge) of that right (interest) by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff bears the burden of substantiating their claims with evidence submitted to the court—that is, of proving that their rights and interests are being violated, contested, or not recognized, and therefore require protection. (Ruling of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated February 13, 2025, in Case No. 920/715/23)

There are cases where one person turns to the court to seek protection of the violated rights of another person or even the state.

A telling example in this context is a case in which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered the issue of an environmental organization’s right to represent the environmental interests of society and its individual members in court.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that, in accordance with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, Ukrainian law, and its own charter, an environmental organization has the right to represent the environmental interests of society and individuals in court in order to protect the violated environmental rights of individuals and citizens or to remedy violations of environmental legislation. At the same time, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to protect a violated constitutional right to a safe environment belongs to everyone and may be exercised both personally and through the participation of a public representative. (Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated February 25, 2022, in Case No. 487/6970/20)

Furthermore, it should be noted that the defendant in the case is determined based on who specifically is violating the rights or interests. Thus, claims are filed specifically against the person who is violating the plaintiff’s rights or interests.

Consequently, when filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff must specify which rights or interests have been violated and how they were violated by the person against whom the claims are brought.

Determining an Effective Means of Protecting a Right or Interest

The specific remedy applied depends on which right or interest the person is seeking to protect. Judicial protection aims to restore the violated right or to cease actions that violate such a right. To this end, during the proceedings, the court determines both the nature of the violated right and the feasibility of protecting it through the remedy chosen by the plaintiff.

In Case No. 185/7969/15-ц, the plaintiff sought to protect his honor and dignity by compelling the defendant to publicly apologize for disseminating negative information in television broadcasts, as well as to recover compensation for emotional distress. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion to dismiss the claim, noting that a compulsory apology is not provided for in Articles 16 and 277 of the Civil Code of Ukraine as a means of judicial protection, and that the claim was not filed against the direct disseminators of the information—the relevant television and radio organizations. Under these circumstances, the remedy chosen by the plaintiff and the group of defendants identified by him did not correspond to the nature of the disputed legal relationship, which precluded granting the claim. (Supreme Court ruling of March 12, 2018, in Case No. 185/7969/15-c)

This is consistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as set forth in its judgment of May 25, 2011, in the case of “The Editorial Board of the Newspaper ‘Pravovoye Delo’ and Shtekel v. Ukraine” (Application No. 33014/05).

If the plaintiff has chosen a remedy that does not correspond to those prescribed by law or is contrary to the law, this constitutes grounds for the court to dismiss the claim. A similar legal position is set forth in the Supreme Court’s rulings of February 5, 2025, in Case No. 354/609/15-c, and of March 20, 2024, in Case No. 134/154/20.

At the same time, it is worth noting that the procedural codes grant courts the right to protect rights and interests not only by the means expressly provided for by law. A court may specify in its decision a method of protection that does not conflict with the law if that particular method will lead to the effective protection of rights and interests.

For example, in Case No. 509/639/22, the Civil Court of Cassation stated that in each case, based on the substance of the grounds for the claims, the explanations provided by the plaintiff, and so on, the court must determine exactly what outcome the plaintiff seeks to achieve as a result of the resolution of the dispute. The court considers cases within the scope of the claims filed but, while maintaining objectivity and impartiality, assists the parties to the proceedings in exercising their rights as provided for by this Code. Fulfilling this obligation entails, in particular, that the court must give the claims their proper interpretation, rather than interpreting them merely literally (Ruling of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated September 10, 2025, in Case No. 509/639/22).

Thus, the court must base its decision not only on the formal content of the claims asserted, but also on which specific remedy will actually lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s violated right.

In another court case, the court also applied a remedy not expressly provided for by law. Specifically, in Case No. 686/18578/23, the plaintiff sought an order requiring the defendant to privatize the apartment and transfer ownership of it to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that the defendant was obligated to privatize the apartment and upheld the corresponding decision, effectively recognizing this remedy as permissible and not contrary to the law. (Ruling No. 686/18578/23 of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated May 28, 2025)

Therefore, determining an effective defense strategy is of great importance for achieving the desired outcome in a court case, since otherwise there is a risk that the claim will be dismissed.

In Case No. 914/2618/16, the bank, which held a mortgage and lien on the debtor’s property, filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the results of the auction, the purchase and sale agreement, the certificate of acquisition of the property at auction, and the obligation of the auction winner to return the property to the debtor. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that such claims are not effective remedies in disputed legal relationships, since even if granted, they do not in and of themselves ensure the proper restoration of the violated right or the return of the property to the debtor’s estate. The court specifically emphasized that declaring the results of an auction, a purchase and sale agreement, or a certificate invalid is not an appropriate remedy if these claims do not lead to the actual restoration of the property situation of the person in whose interest the lawsuit was filed. 

At the same time, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that in such legal relationships, an effective remedy is precisely a claim to reclaim the property for the benefit of the debtor, since such a decision constitutes a proper basis for entering a record of state registration of ownership and the actual return of the property. Thus, the Court effectively confirmed that the correct determination of the remedy is crucial for achieving the desired outcome in the case, and the selection of an inappropriate or ineffective remedy constitutes an independent ground for dismissing the claim. (Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated July 6, 2022, in Case No. 914/2618/16)

Thus, an effective remedy is one that will produce the desired results and consequences—that is, one that will have the greatest effect in restoring the violated rights and interests.

Conclusions

Thus, rights or legitimate interests must have been violated at the time the claim is filed with the court, since in the absence of such a violation, the element subject to protection is lacking. If the court concludes that the right or interest has not been violated, or that the defendant against whom the claims are brought has not violated the plaintiff’s rights or interests, the court will dismiss the claim.

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that it is important not only to identify which right or interest has been infringed but also to specify a remedy that will be effective in restoring such a right or interest. In other words, this remedy must be effective, and its implementation must result in the restoration of the individual’s infringed rights or interests.

The article was written by Nataliia Matviichuk, Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW, Attorney at law