The absence of an e-mail address does not constitute grounds for dismissing a complaint against an advocate

The fact that a person does not have an email address cannot in itself serve as grounds for the Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission (QDBC) to return a complaint regarding an advocate’s conduct if the complainant has explicitly stated that they do not have an email address. However, this does not apply to advocates — they are required to have an electronic account in the Unified System of Information Technology for the Judiciary (USITJ).

These conclusions were reached by the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal in Case No. 300/1204/25. The ruling dated February 24, 2026, was published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, according to the official website of the High Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission.

The Regulations on the procedure for receiving and considering complaints regarding improper conduct by an advocate, which may result in disciplinary liability, approved by a decision of the BCU on August 30, 2014, required, among other things, that the complaint include an email address if available. However, after the outbreak of full-scale war, in order to ensure the online operation of disciplinary bodies under martial law, the Bar Council of Ukraine, by its Decision No. 34 of March 25, 2022, removed the words «if available».

And when one of the complainants had his complaint returned due to procedural deficiencies (including the failure to provide an email address), he filed a lawsuit with a number of claims, including a request to overturn the amendments to the Regulations in this regard.

The court of first instance partially granted the claim: it ruled that BCU Decision No. 34 of March 25, 2022, was unlawful specifically in that part. The court denied the remaining claims, including the challenge to other BCU decisions, the issue of «continuity», the scheduling of the congress, and the claim for compensation for moral damages. Following this, both parties filed appeals: the plaintiff requested that the claim be granted in full, while the UNBA sought to overturn the decision in the sole granted part.

The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that, following the removal of the words «if available», the complainant was allegedly required to have an email address or create one specifically for filing the complaint. The court explicitly noted that the BCU did not impose such an obligation on applicants: if an email address exists, it must be provided; if it does not, it is sufficient to state its absence. In the panel’s view, the mere fact of not having an email address does not prevent the exercise of the right to file a complaint and does not create an undue burden on the applicant. Furthermore, the failure to provide an email address was not the sole basis for returning the complaint.

Another argument in the appeal was the status of the plaintiff himself. The court established that he is an advocate; therefore, following the entry into force of Law No. 3200-IX of June 29, 2023, «On amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine regarding the mandatory registration and use of Electronic Cabinets in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunications System or its separate subsystem (modules) that facilitates document exchange», he fell under the rule requiring mandatory registration of an electronic office in the USITS. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that at the time of filing the complaint, the advocate was obligated to use the official electronic office and, accordingly, to provide this information when addressing the disciplinary bodies of the advocacy association.

As a result, the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the appeal of the UNBA. The first-instance decision regarding the annulment of BCU Decision No. 34 was overturned. In this regard, the court issued a new ruling dismissing the claim.