How to Apply for Review Based on Newly Discovered Circumstances

When this is needed

This guide is for a case where the court de­ci­sion has become final, but a ground that could have ma­te­ri­al­ly af­fect­ed the court’s con­clu­sions emerged or became known af­ter­ward. For example, a person learned of a fact that existed during the pro­ceed­ings but was ob­jec­tive­ly unknown to them, or a de­ci­sion that formed the basis of the earlier con­clu­sion became final and was later set aside.

For a case from Lviv or Lviv Oblast, start with a short check­list: what became known and when, whether the cir­cum­stance existed during the pro­ceed­ings, whether the date can be proved, and whether the outer limit has expired. If the issue is a legal error by the court, first assess the cas­sa­tion dead­line.

Applicable deadline and procedure

The CPC re­quires an ap­pli­ca­tion within 30 days of the event cor­re­spond­ing to the spe­cif­ic ground. For a sig­nif­i­cant cir­cum­stance, this is the day the person learned or could have learned that it existed. For a crim­i­nal judg­ment, ruling, or de­ci­sion serving as the ground, the ref­er­ence may be the date it became final.

In ad­di­tion to the 30-day period, sep­a­rate­ly check the outer limits from the date the de­ci­sion became final: 3 years for sig­nif­i­cant cir­cum­stances and 10 years for other and ex­cep­tion­al grounds. The review-dead­line cal­cu­la­tor pro­vides a pre­lim­i­nary cal­en­dar, but does not replace review of the outer limit.

Steps to take

First state the ground in one sen­tence: what became known, when it became known, and why it could have changed the de­ci­sion. If the point is only that “the court as­sessed the ev­i­dence in­cor­rect­ly,” this may not qualify as a newly dis­cov­ered cir­cum­stance.

Next, match the ground to Article 423 of the CPC. It matters whether it con­cerns a sig­nif­i­cant cir­cum­stance, false tes­ti­mo­ny or doc­u­ments, re­ver­sal of a de­ci­sion that formed the basis, or another special case. This de­ter­mines both the start­ing date for the 30 days and the outer limit.

Then collect ev­i­dence. You need not only doc­u­ments about the cir­cum­stance itself, but also proof of when it became known: a letter, au­thor­i­ty re­sponse, date a de­ci­sion became final, crim­i­nal-pro­ceed­ing ma­te­ri­als, or another sub­stan­ti­at­ed record.

The final step is the pro­ce­dur­al package. The ap­pli­ca­tion must meet the CPC re­quire­ments and include the request for review, grounds, at­tach­ments, court fee, copies for par­tic­i­pants, and proof of service.

What to check before filing

Check that the cir­cum­stance existed during the orig­i­nal pro­ceed­ings. If the fact arose only after the de­ci­sion, a dif­fer­ent claim or pro­ce­dur­al step may be ap­pro­pri­ate; review based on newly dis­cov­ered cir­cum­stances may not be. The ap­pli­ca­tion must also not simply repeat an appeal or cas­sa­tion: a dif­fer­ent in­ter­pre­ta­tion of an agree­ment, a new legal po­si­tion, or dis­agree­ment with the court’s find­ings is not enough. It must show a con­nec­tion between the newly dis­cov­ered cir­cum­stance and the outcome of the case.

Also check whether the outer limit has expired. 30 days from the event will not help if the 3- or 10-year limit from the date the de­ci­sion became final has passed and no statu­to­ry ex­cep­tion applies.

When to consult a lawyer

Consult a lawyer when the de­ci­sion con­cerns a sub­stan­tial amount, the dead­line is close, the dis­cov­ery date is dis­put­ed, or it is dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish a newly dis­cov­ered cir­cum­stance from new ev­i­dence. A mistake about the ground often leads to dis­missal without con­sid­er­a­tion of the merits.

For a Lviv case, a con­sul­ta­tion can quickly map the dead­lines: 30 days from the rel­e­vant event, the outer limit, and the court to apply to, the court fee, and the ev­i­dence that ac­tu­al­ly sub­stan­ti­ates the ground for review.