Sending an application to the court's e-mail is not a proper form of appeal – SC

With the introduction of mandatory electronic offices for lawyers in the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System, there are two forms of filing procedural documents. The Supreme Court reminded that not every digital signature and not every electronic appeal is proper.

An advocate, as a representative of the plaintiff in civil case No. 944/6062/23, filed an application for interim relief. This application, which was signed with an electronic digital signature and sent by e-mail, was returned by the court of first instance without consideration.

The court's ruling was motivated by the fact that the application did not contain information about the presence or absence of an electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System.

Pursuant to Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, advocates must have such offices. They can take procedural actions in electronic form exclusively through the UJICS using their own electronic signature, which is equivalent to a handwritten signature.

However, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the reasoning was erroneous, as the lawyer indicated in her application that she had an electronic cabinet.

The Civil Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court (ruling of 12.02.2025) reminded that the mandatory registration and use of electronic offices by representatives of legal professions was introduced in October 2023 by Law No. 3200-IX. And Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that the courts have the UJICS.

Procedural documents in electronic form must be submitted by the parties to the case to the court using the UJICS in the manner prescribed by the Regulations on this system (decision of the High Council of Justice of 17.08.2021 No. 1845/0/15-21).

The high judges confirmed that the lawyer had indicated that she had an electronic cabinet in the UJICS. The application was accompanied by a printout of the result of the electronic digital signature verification, but such a signature was made without using the E-Court and E-Cabinet subsystems.

At the same time, according to the CCC, the application could be filed either in writing or electronically using the Electronic Court service.

The general requirements for the form and content of a written application, petition, objection on procedural issues and the consequences of non-compliance with such requirements are set forth in Article 183 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such documents must contain, inter alia, information on the presence or absence of an electronic cabinet. They are signed by the applicant or his/her representative. The court, having established that the document was submitted without complying with the requirements, returns it to the applicant without consideration.

Thus, the Supreme Court concludes, by sending an application for interim relief by e-mail using an electronic digital signature, rather than using the Electronic Court subsystem, the lawyer used a method of applying to the court that is not provided for by the current procedural legislation.

In such circumstances, the CCU overturned the decision of the court of appeal, upholding the decision of the court of first instance.