{"id":578277,"date":"2026-03-22T19:48:47","date_gmt":"2026-03-22T17:48:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/2026\/03\/578277\/there-is-love-but-little-evidence-the-court-did-not-recognize-the-serviceman-s-relationship-with-his-partner-as-a-family\/"},"modified":"2026-03-22T19:48:50","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T17:48:50","slug":"there-is-love-but-little-evidence-the-court-did-not-recognize-the-serviceman-s-relationship-with-his-partner-as-a-family","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/korabelov.info\/en\/2026\/03\/578277\/there-is-love-but-little-evidence-the-court-did-not-recognize-the-serviceman-s-relationship-with-his-partner-as-a-family\/","title":{"rendered":"There is love, but little evidence: the court did not recognize the serviceman's relationship with his partner as a family"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Industrial District Court of Kharkiv<\/strong>, presided over by Judge Viktor Chernyak<\/strong>, on 20 March<\/strong> 2026 denied National Guard serviceman Dmytro Lyaskovetsky<\/strong> the establishment of the fact of living as one family with his partner Yevheniy Donets<\/strong>. About this reports<\/a> the publication \u201cGraty\u201d. The court concluded that the evidence provided was insufficient to confirm factual marital relations.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff himself explained that he went to court, in particular because of his military service since 2024<\/strong>, to ensure his partner’s access to him in the event of injury, treatment or other critical situations, as well as in case of death, capture or disappearance. According to him, he and his partner have been living together since November, rent housing, run a joint household and finances, have a joint bank account and even have a dog registered together.<\/p>\n

The court’s decision states that establishing the legal fact of living as one family requires a combination of evidence, as well as the stability of such relations, which, in the court’s view, was not proven in this case.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe court once again confirmed that same-sex couples should have the same level of protection as heterosexual couples. The court considered this case the same way it would consider one concerning heterosexual individuals, and analyzed the evidence the same way. Therefore, we now need to review the court’s decision, think, analyze the court’s reasoning about which pieces of evidence were taken into account and which were not, and then decide on filing an appeal,\u201d said the plaintiff’s lawyer Oksana Huz<\/strong>, commenting on the court’s decision and the next steps in the case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

After the ruling was announced, Dmytro Lyaskovetsky<\/strong> himself suggested that the court may have been under pressure, but for now the parties are considering options for further action \u2014 either filing an appeal or preparing a new lawsuit with additional evidence.<\/p>\n

Representatives of Kharkiv’s LGBTIQ community attended the hearings to support the plaintiff. At the same time, under the court building on 20 March 2026<\/strong> about 50<\/strong> young men<\/strong> in balaclavas gathered, opposing the satisfaction of the claim. They chanted slogans against same-sex marriages but did not say which organizations they represented and displayed no symbols. Some participants in the action looked very young, possibly underage. The police, whom journalists contacted, said they would respond in case of offenses. According to available information, the rally passed without conflicts.<\/p>\n

Earlier we wrote:<\/strong><\/p>\n