THE RIGHT TO CASSATION APPEAL AGAINST INTERLOCUTORY RULINGSOF THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT: ACCESS TO JUSTICE OR A PROCEDURAL ILLUSION?

Abstract

B a c k g r o u n d . The article is devoted to researching one of the key problems in modern civil procedure in Ukraine–the right of second appeal (cassation) against interim court decisions, particularly those that set aside rulings obstructing the progress of a case. The relevance of the topic stems from the emergence of conflicting case law within the Supreme Court itself, which threatens the principle of legal certainty and the predictability of justice. The aim of the article is to develop and substantiate a comprehensive approach to resolving this procedural dilemma, one that would ensure a balance between procedural efficiency and the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, in the context of a modern judicial model oriented towards cooperation of the parties, proportionality, and effective dispute resolution.

M e t h o d s . To achieve the aim, formal-dogmatic, systemic, comparative-legal, and doctrinal methods were employed. The relevant norms of procedural codes and pertinent case law were analyzed, and the problem was assessed through the lens of the fundamental principles of civil procedure and the standards set forth in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

R e s u l t s . The research established that the restrictive approach to the right of cassation appeal is based on an erroneous interpretation of legal norms, creates an unjustified procedural asymmetry that violates the principle of equality of arms, and embodies the concept of "false" procedural economy. It has been proven that such an approach is incompatible with the ECtHR's case law regarding the right of access to a court, the principle of equality of arms, and the principle of legal certainty.

C o n c l u s i o n s . The conclusions formulate generalizing criteria for resolving similar conflicts and provide recommendations for judicial practice. It is established that an appellate court decision setting aside a ruling that obstructs the case's proceedings is subject to cassation appeal. The validity of the Grand Chamber's position in departing from a controversial conclusion to ensure the uniformity of case law and affirm the rule of law is emphasized.