The Supreme Court overturned the decision to recover over 121 thousand hryvnias from the perpetrator of a road accident: what is the reason?

A BMW driver got into an accident without a valid motor vehicle insurance policy. MTIBU compensated the victim for over 116 thousand UAH, and then demanded the return of the funds spent through the court. The first two instances supported the bureau, but the Supreme Court found a significant violation: the defendant was actually unaware of the consideration of the case and had no opportunity to defend his position.

On July 29, 2026, the Civil Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court considered case No. 753/12634/25 regarding the recourse claim of the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine against the perpetrator of the accident.

Accident without a motor vehicle insurance policy: MTIBU paid over 116 thousand UAH

The accident occurred in 2024 on Darnytska Square in Kyiv. The BMW driver collided with a Toyota car.

The BMW driver was found guilty of the accident by the Dniprovsky District Court of Kyiv on January 3, 2025.

At the time of the accident, the driver’s civil liability was not insured. Therefore, the MTIBU compensated the victim at the expense of the victims’ protection fund.

The amount of the regulatory payment was UAH 116,663.16. The bureau spent another UAH 2,400 to determine the amount of damage caused.

After that, the MTIBU appealed to the perpetrator of the accident with a demand to compensate for the funds spent.

The total amount of the claims was UAH 119,063.16, as well as UAH 2,422.40 in court fees.

The driver lost the court, but claimed that he did not even know about the case

On October 27, 2025, the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv fully satisfied the MTIBU’s claim.

It was decided to recover a total of UAH 121,485.56 from the driver, including court fees.

However, there was a problem with notifying the defendant about the trial.

The court sent a ruling to open proceedings and a lawsuit to the driver’s registered place of residence. The letter was returned with the note “addressee absent at the specified address”.

The driver stated that he actually did not know about the case. Because of this, he was unable to file a response, object to the MTIBU’s requirements, provide his own evidence, or request an examination to verify the amount of damages.

Despite these arguments, the Kyiv Court of Appeal left the decision unchanged on April 16, 2026.

Then the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court: the defendant must have a real opportunity to defend himself

The Court of Cassation emphasized that the right of a person to know about the consideration of his case is one of the basic guarantees of fair trial.

In particular, part one of Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that no one may be deprived of the right to information about the date, time, and place of consideration of his case.

The Supreme Court also referred to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The principle of equality of arms requires that each participant in the proceedings has a real opportunity to present his or her position and not be in a significantly worse position than the other party.

In this case, according to the conclusion of the cassation instance, the driver was not actually provided with such an opportunity.

The court should have checked whether the driver received the documents

The Supreme Court paid special attention to the procedure for sending documents to the defendant.

If the plaintiff sends a copy of the claim in paper form by letter with a description of the attachment, the court of first instance must check whether the relevant postal item was actually received.

In particular, the information can be checked through the postal tracking service and the result recorded in the case file.

In this case, there was no proper confirmation of the delivery of documents to the defendant.

The Court of Appeal, in turn, did not eliminate the violation and did not properly respond to the driver’s arguments that he did not receive a claim and a ruling on the initiation of proceedings.

The case will be re-examined

The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturned the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated April 16, 2026, and sent the case for a new appeal hearing.

At the same time, this decision does not mean that the driver was released from the obligation to compensate MTIBU for more than UAH 119,000.

The Supreme Court did not resolve the dispute on the merits, but established a procedural violation during the preliminary hearing.

Now the Court of Appeal must re-examine the case, take into account the defendant’s position and provide the parties with the opportunity to fully present their arguments and evidence.

Thus, the key issue in this case was not the issue of the lack of a civil registration certificate, but the defendant’s right to be properly notified of the trial and have a real opportunity to protect his interests.