There is no separate «advocate's office» in the UJITS — SC

Advocates register their electronic office in the «Electronic Court» subsystem as individuals. Only after registration can they set the additional attribute «advocate» in the user profile settings, which unlocks the corresponding functionality.

The Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in case No. 620/13177/23 explained how roles and identification of individuals by RNOICP are differentiated in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunications System.

On November 2, 2023, the district administrative court, following written proceedings, issued a decision and the next day sent its text to the person's electronic office in the UJITS subsystem «Electronic Court».

On December 21, the party to the case applied for a paper copy of the decision. After receiving the copy (March 11, 2024), he prepared and filed (April 2, 2024) an appeal together with a motion to renew the deadline. In his justification, he noted that the start of the deadline cannot be linked to the delivery of the decision to the electronic office registered under his RNOICP, because this office was registered and belongs to him as an advocate of a law firm. And the firm is not a party to the case.

However, the court of appeal refused to open appeal proceedings, as it found that the appeal had been filed outside the time limits set out in Article 295 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The grounds given for renewing the time limit for appeal were found to be invalid.

When considering the complaint, the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that, in accordance with Article 251 of the CAS, court decisions are sent (delivered) in electronic form to the parties to the case (their representatives) who have electronic accounts in the UJITS «Electronic Court» subsystem.

The court delivers any documents in cases in which a person who has registered an electronic office in the UJITS participates exclusively in electronic form by sending them to that person's electronic office, which does not deprive them of the right to receive a copy of the court decision in paper form upon separate request.

The Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's comment that the electronic office to which the court of first instance's decision was delivered belongs to an advocate of a law firm, while the participant in this case is a natural person.

The court specifically referred to the fact that, according to the user manual for the Electronic Court, which is posted on the UJITS user support website, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the UJITS Regulations (decision of the High Council of Justice of 17 August 2021 No. 1845/0/15-21) advocates are required to register their official email addresses with the UJITS. These persons must register their electronic accounts as individuals. This is because the functionality of such persons in the electronic account does not differ from that of a natural person:

— documents are received from the court if such a person is added by court employees to the parties to the proceedings, indicating the person's RNOICP in the party card;

— the preparation and submission of documents to the court also does not differ from that of a natural person.

Therefore, advocates register their electronic accounts in the «Electronic Court» subsystem as individuals — using their own RNOICP as identification data, and only after registration can they set the additional attribute «advocate» in the settings of the electronic office user profile, which opens the corresponding functionality (the ability to issue an order for a specific case to access case documents, etc.).

Thus, after registering the electronic office, regardless of whether the person has the status of an advocate and has entered the relevant information in the user profile of the electronic office, all court cases (and court decisions adopted in them) in which the person is a participant will be displayed in the «My cases» section.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court concluded (resolution of the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated 22.01.2026) that the plaintiff's arguments that he did not have an electronic office in the «Electronic Court» subsystem or that this electronic office is his electronic office exclusively as an advocate of the Law Firm are unfounded.