Issue: № 4, 2026
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2026.4.23
The author criticizes the inconsistent judicial understanding of the retroactive operation of laws in Ukraine. A manifest example of this inconsistency is found in the contradictory approaches taken by various appellate courts regarding compensation for the relatives of fallen soldiers. As noted in the paper, Ukrainian legal theory and practice often fail to distinguish between retroactive (primary, full, actual, total) and retrospective (secondary, partial, apparent, weak) effects. Furthermore, the author argues that the concept of “curative law” is essential for the Ukrainian legal system. Such laws serve to clarify existing statutes or fill legislative lacunae, representing legitimate examples of retroactive application. Legislative (authentic) or delegated (authoritative) interpretations may be classified as curative acts, which – by their nature – may not even trigger traditional concerns regarding retroactivity. Employing comparative and historical methods, the author traces the development of the retrospectivity/retroactivity doctrine within the English legal tradition. Through a case-study method, the author further analyzes: U.S. Supreme Court opinions, Australian Appellate Court decisions and UK House of Lords opinions regarding "legitimate expectations" in the context of retrospectivity. The author demonstrates that in common law jurisdictions, curative and clarifying laws are consistently applied retroactively. In these instances, the classic presumption against retroactivity is rendered inapplicable due to overriding public interest and other legal justifications. The Australian approach toward “remedial”, “restorative”, and “curative” laws – as well as those designed to overturn judicial decisions – is presented as a particularly relevant model for authentic interpretation. In conclusion, the author recommends that legislative (authentic) interpretations be applied retrospectively (i.e., to cases not yet finally adjudicated) to avoid frustrating legitimate expectations and to uphold the principle of res judicata.
Keywords : authentic interpretation, interpretation, retroactivity, retrospectivity, legitimate expectations, curative law, clarifying law
References:
1. Lepish N.I., Pavlovych-Seneta Y.P. The validity of acts of interpretation of law in time. Comparative-analytical law. 2019. Vol. 5. pp. 41–44. DOI: 10.32782/2524-0390/2019.5.8 (in Ukrainian).
2. Supreme Court. Determination of the constitutionality of a law or other legal act: whose competence within the meaning of Art. 7 KASU, 2025. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rQbf_OOBf0 (in Ukrainian).
3. SLOVNYK - Explanatory dictionary of the Ukrainian language, spelling dictionary online. URL: https://slovnyk.ua/index.php (in Ukrainian).
4. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 12.07.2019 in no. 5-r(I)/2019. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/va05p710-19#Text (in Ukrainian).
5. On law-making activity: Law of Ukraine of 24.08.2023 no. 3354-IX: as of 19 April 2025. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3354-20#Text (in Ukrainian).
6. Resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of 07.11.2023 in no. 520/9778/19. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/114834843 (in Ukrainian).
7. Separate opinion of judges V.M. Sharapa and L.L. Moroz of Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court 31.03.2021 in no. 803/1541/16. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/97735213 (in Ukrainian).
8. Resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of 19.12.2023 in no. 907/849/22. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/115859317 (in Ukrainian).
9. Resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of 27.12.2025 in no. 753/3721/23. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126328329 (in Ukrainian).
10. Procedure for the transfer of residential buildings and premises (apartments) to non-residential ones in Kryvyi Rih: Act of 28.08.2013 no. 2161. URL: https://share.google/dWQmGgnoV0XiKkKHd (in Ukrainian).
11. Decision of Central City District Court of the city of Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk region of 24.03.2023 in no. 216/3324/22.URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/119580074 (in Ukrainian)
12. On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on the Appointment and Payment of One-Time Cash Assistance: Law of Ukraine 09.12.2023 no. 3515-IX. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3515-2c0#Text (in Ukrainian).
13. Tretiakova H. Response. May 16. 2025 Attorney at Law Yakymenko T. Committee on Social Policy and Protection of Veterans' Rights. № 04-2025/139358. Letter. URL: http://google.com/file/d/13ISoJMTYRT-bH57YniWZuITkqqGjabEO/view (in Ukrainian).
14. Halimskyi S. Response. 15 Jul 2025 Attorney at Law Yakymenko T. Department of Social Security of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. No 220/13/22897. Letter URL:http://google.com/file/d/13ISoJMTYRT-bH57YniWZuITkqqGjabEO/view (in Ukrainian).
15. Resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of 10.05.2024 in no. 440/6725/23. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/118962318 (in Ukrainian).
16. Decision of the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court dated 24.01.2025 in no. 120/2169/24. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/124670743 (in Ukrainian).
17. Resolution of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal dated 09.09.2025 in the case no. 560/1455/25. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130136675 (in Ukrainian).
18. Resolution of the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal dated 29.09.2025 in no. 460/14164/24. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130628197 (in Ukrainian).
19. Resolution of the Second Administrative Court of Appeal dated 12.09.2025 in no. 520/1329/25. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130175727 (in Ukrainian).
20. Decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court dated 23.12.2025 in no. 160/7816/25. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132877003 (in Ukrainian).
21. Resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of 10.05.2023 in no. 640/5320/19. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/110772372 (in Ukrainian).
22. Resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of 23.07.2024 in no. 280/3308/23. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/120634376 (in Ukrainian).
23. Criminal Code of Ukraine : Code of Ukraine of 05.04.2001 no. 2341-III: as of 17 July 2025. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14#Text (in Ukrainian).
24. Waldron J. Retroactive law : How Dodgy was Duynhoven? Otago law review. 2004. Vol. 10. № 4. pp. 631–654. URL: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/OtaLawRw/2004/8.pdf
25. Palmer A., Sampford C. Retrospective Legislation in Australia: Looking Back at the 1980s. Federal Law Review. 1994. Vol. 22. № 2. pp. 217–277. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x9402200201
26. Finlay L. A Judicial Fiction? Retrospectivity and the Role of Parliament. Monash University Law Review. 2019. Vol. 2. № 45. pp. 435–60. DOI: 10.26180/11931291
27. Zoldan E.C. The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause. Wisconsin Law Review. 2015. No. 727. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2469141
28. Argued and Determined Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the Thex Province of Maryland. 1809. Maryland Reports a Series of the Most Important Law Cases. by Thomas Harris, Junior, Clerk of the Court of Appeals,. John M'henry, Attorney at Law. URL: https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5400/sc5496/000500/000534/images/1_h_mch_371.pdf
29. Calder v. Bull, U.S. Supreme Court. № 3 U.S. 386, 06.08.1798. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/386/#tab-opinion-1935355
30. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994). № 92–757, 26.04.1994. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/386/#tab-opinion-1935355
31. Laitos J.G.. Legislative Retroactivity. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law. 1997. Vol. 52, № 1. pp. 81–159. URL: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw/vol52/iss1/13/
32 Omar Usman J. Constitutional Constraints on Retroactive Civil Legislation: The Hollow Promises of the Federal Constitution and Unrealized Potential of State Constitutions. Nevada law journal. 2013. Vol. 14. № 63. pp. 63–100. URL: https://repository.belmont.edu/lawfaculty/101/
33. Minnesota Statutes: STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION Chapter 645 of 28.04.1941. URL: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/645.16
34. Davis M. Retroactivity of Statutes. St. Paul: Minnesota House Research Department. 2024. 8 p. URL: https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/retrostat.pdf (дата звернення: 10.03.2026).
35. Supreme Court of Minnesota, Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff. № CX-90-2341, 05.06.1992. URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1992/cx-90-2341-2.html
36. Supreme Court of Minnesota, Schoening v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. № 38,700, 38,701, 15.03.1992. URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1963/38-700.html
37. Minnesota Session Laws - 1985 Regular Session: CHAPTER 266-S.F. of 31.05.1985 № 196. URL: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/1985/0/266/#laws.0.2.0
38. Supreme Court of Minnesota, Nardini v. Nardini. № C1-85-1421, 23.10.1987. URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1987/c1-85-1421-2.html
39. Constitution of the State of Ohio of 17.06.1851. URL: https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/publications/election/constitution.pdf
40. Phillips Letelier J. Retroactivity and legitimate expectation in the UK Administrative Law. Revista de Derecho Público: Teoría y método. 2023. Vol. 7. pp. 83–109. URL: https://doi.org/10.37417/rpd/vol_7_2023_1259
41. Merriam-webster dictionaries. An Encyclopædia Britannica Company Search Dictionary New. 2026. URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegitimate
42. Opinions in Odelola (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), House of Lords of 20.05.2009 in case № [2009] UKHL 25. URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090520/odelol.pdf
43. Supreme Court of Ohio. № 19982386, 05.01.2000. URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/2000/
44. Troy D.E. Toward a Definition and Critique of Retroactivity. Alabama Law Review. 2000. Vol. 51, № 3. pp. 1329–1353. URL: https://law.ua.edu/lawreview/volume-51/
45. Wendell K.L. Mistakes happen: fixing them through curative legislation. Stetson Law Review. 2008. Vol. 37. pp. 459–469. URL: https://stetsonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/37.2.04.Wendell.pdf
46. Bernaziuk Ya. Temporal approach to resolving conflicts between legislative acts. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law. 2022. Vol. 2, No. 72. pp. 43–52. DOI: 10.24144/2307-3322.2022.72.40 (in Ukrainian).
47. Zahynei-Zabolotenko Z.A., Panchenko N.M. The possibility of retroactive effect of the results of judicial interpretation of criminal law in the context of its legal certainty. Analytical and comparative jurisprudence. 2024. No. 5. pp. 688–693. DOI: 10.24144/2788-6018.2024.05.106 (in Ukrainian).
48. Decision of the Cassation Administrative Court of 23.10.2025 in case No. 520/1329/25. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131264455 (in Ukrainian).
49. Decision of the Cassation Administrative Court of 04.08.2025 in case No. 400/1045/25. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129331370 (in Ukrainian).
50. Decision of the Cassation Administrative Court of 20.06.2025 in case No. 560/19656/24. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128293262 (in Ukrainian).