Oleksander Trofymov,

student of National Internal Affairs University (Kharkiv)

Village Sergiyivka, Kakhovka district, Kherson region. Aged woman hiding from cold wind is walking on the street, drowned in her own thoughts. And suddenly she becomes the object of the dog's attack. The sheep dog that for centuries had been trained to scare away animals chose a human being for the attack. As a result, the woman had to stay at the hospital for two months receiving treatment from doctors. This scary story happened on February 15, 2001.

How did a patrol dog appear on the street without his owner? Who is responsible for physical and moral damage that the woman got? Who and in what amount will reimburse these damages? The local court was supposed to answer all thses questions where the plaintiff Dubynska Raisa Mykoliavna filed a lawsuit. The court determined that the owner of the dog would be the defendant.

On aAugust 6 of the same year the judge of local court of Kakhovka district made a rather contradicting decision, when he denied to reimburse the damage ( the original of this decision is attached to the article).

The court's position is stated in the court decision: " The plaintiff also did not prove that the dog broke the leash due to improper treatment of the defendant. The witnesses proved that the dog was always leashed."

It is not understandable what other information the court would need to make other decision. May be the judge would need a video of the moment when the dog was breaking the leash? May it was the force-major - for example, the lightening struck the leash and broke it? What else if not the owner's negligence would be the reason for this accident? 

Shocked with such justice, Rayisa Mykolaivna asked me to consult her, because she felt deceived and, the most important - she was not going to give up.

When I studied the lawsuit materials and I could not understand what was the court decision based on, considering that the witnesses' testimony and evidences provided by the plaintiff were in total contradiction with the court decision. What surprised me the most, was that the court did not use one of the main laws that regulate rules of keeping pets called "Rules for keeping dogs, cats and predatory animals in places where people live", which was ratified by the Ministry of housing and communal services of USSR on June 6, 1980.

On September 1, 2001 I wrote an appellation to the local court on civil lawsuits to Kherson appellation court where I pointed out the judge's violation of norms for material and procedural rights. The appellation court canceled the city court's decision and the lawsuit was sent for re-investigation to the same court.

When they received a decision from the "top", that contained lots of corrections and pointed defects in the previous court decision, Kakhovka district court gathered another hearing and in 15 minuted made a totally different decision in favor of the plaintiff. The court decided to satisfy all demands of the plaintiff and make the defendant pay 430 UAH material damage plus 1000 UAH moral damage (the decision is attached to the article).

This is how the confrontation between a citizen and a court has finished, even though the court's responsibility is to protect rights of citizens. Sadly, it is not the only example. If we think about reasons for similar "negligible" court decisions, we will have a row of questions: can we build law-based government with such courts? Why doesn't our government pay enough attention to problems of financial assistance to courts, when according to monitorings, conducted by Western and Ukrainian human rights NGO financial independence is the top condition for the court's independence)?  When will accidental people stop being given judge's titles? And finally, when will the system of court self-government be set?

May be governmental officials forgot the proverb "Don't swear off jail and sadness". They are people, too, and can easily "bump" into a judge who will make the decision based on his own opinion, but not on the laws.  

P.S. We were thinking for a while where to place this materail. Looking at the first decision of Kakhovka district, it fully deserved to be placed in Delirium section. But after long lasting debates we decided that this story is a success story about Oleksandr and Rayisa Mykolaivna who won over the imperfect court system. That is why it is placed in the Victories - as an example for others (editorial board)