Without the right of appeal: Supreme Court clarifies the nuances of administrative proceedings

A procedural decision by an authorized official of an administrative body to refuse to suspend administrative proceedings cannot be the subject of a separate judicial review.

This conclusion was reached by the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court: Resolution of the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated February 10, 2026, in Case No. 160/22060/24 (Proceedings No. K/990/34610/25) 

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Department for Asset Management of the Dnipro City Council, in which she requested, in particular, to overturn the procedural decision refusing to grant her motion to suspend administrative proceedings. In support of her claims, the plaintiff noted that, in accordance with the procedure established by Law of Ukraine No. 2073-IX of February 17, 2022, “On Administrative Procedure,” she had submitted a statement to the city council requesting a decision to grant her (as a land user and resident of the territory) the status of an interested party during the administrative proceedings regarding the change of land use designation; to ensure free remote access in real time to all case materials regarding the change of land use designation; and to suspend the administrative proceedings regarding the change of land use designation until the court decision in Case No. 160/25184/21 becomes final. However, during the consideration of the case, the defendant issued, in particular, a procedural decision denying the plaintiff’s motion to suspend the administrative proceedings until the court’s decision in the aforementioned case becomes final, which, in her opinion, was issued in the absence of grounds provided for by law.

Considering such a procedural decision unlawful and citing the absence of a complaints review commission established within the administrative body, the plaintiff indicated that it is subject to direct appeal to the administrative court. By a decision of the court of first instance, the claim regarding the appeal of the aforementioned procedural decision was granted. By a ruling of the appellate court, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned and a new decision was issued, denying the claims in this part.

The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claim to overturn the procedural decision denying the motion to stay the administrative proceedings, and dismissed the case in this part, while leaving the decision unchanged in the remaining part.

The Supreme Court noted that until the adoption of an administrative act—that is, a decision or a legally significant act of an individual nature adopted (committed) by an administrative body to resolve a specific case and aimed at acquiring, changing, terminating, or exercising the rights and/or obligations of an individual (individuals)— the decision (action) that temporarily suspends (halts) the progress (course) of rights-establishing, rights-obligating, or any other significant actions in the case is subject to appeal. Conversely, when a decision is made to deny a request to suspend administrative proceedings, after which the progress of the case is not suspended and no obstacles are created for the conduct of the proceedings, such a decision is not subject to appeal until the administrative act is adopted.

The legislature has deliberately limited the scope of procedural actions and/or procedural decisions subject to separate appeal, given the priority of resolving certain issues. Granting participants in administrative proceedings the right to appeal all actions and/or procedural decisions prior to the adoption of an administrative act (regardless of their substance and significance) would create a precondition for participants in administrative proceedings to abuse their rights and unjustifiably delay the consideration of the case, which would not be consistent with the objective toward which the provisions of Law No. 2073-IX are directed.