Lidiya Izovitova identified 7 challenges in administrative proceedings for advocates

The predictability of judicial practice, jurisdictional disputes, cassation filters, enforcement of judgments against the state, the burden of proof, written proceedings, and guarantees for the practice of law remain key issues in administrative justice for advocates.

This was emphasized by the President of the UNBA, BCU Lidiya Izovitova in her opening remarks at the Forum on administrative law and judicial proceedings «IUS PUBLICUM 2026», organized on June 19 in Odesa by the Bar Council of that region.

She noted that the forum’s objective is not to pit advocates against judges, but to discuss how to improve the judicial process and what legislative changes should be made. The President of the UNBA, BCU identified certain issues as systemic bottlenecks that require resolution.

The first such issue is the predictability of judicial practice. Last year, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court issued approximately 300 decisions, accompanied by 190 separate opinions. This indicates that even Grand Chamber judges may hold a position different from that set forth in the decision. For advocates and clients, this means that a legal position prepared in accordance with established judicial practice may become obsolete during the course of a case. She mentioned «hidden» conclusions as a separate problem. These are situations where a court formally states that it shares the Supreme Court’s legal position but, in fact, takes a different approach. As a result, even in a case where an advocate relies on a well-established legal position, there remains a risk that it will not be applied.

Second, jurisdictional disputes. The Grand Chamber consistently emphasizes that the substance of the law and the nature of the legal relationship are decisive, rather than the authority acting as a party to the proceedings. At the same time, the number of cases addressing issues of erroneously determined jurisdiction indicates that this issue remains complex for both courts and advocates. According to the President of the UNBA, BCU, an error in determining jurisdiction at the outset of a case is costly for clients, as proceedings can be delayed for years.

Speaking about cassation filters, L. Izovitova acknowledged that access to the Supreme Court and cassation review are extraordinary procedures. At the same time, in administrative disputes where the state or a public authority is a party, one cannot agree that minor social and pension cases are effectively closed to cassation. For a person with a small pension (unlike the state), even 1,000 hryvnias is a significant amount.

The President of the UNBA, BCU identified the fourth key issue as the problem of enforcing court decisions against the state, since a court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff is only half the battle. Enforcement is difficult to achieve, penalties for non-compliance are insignificant, and criminal proceedings are initiated selectively.

Separately, L. Izovitova focused on the burden of proof. She noted that administrative proceedings establish a higher standard of protection for the plaintiff, and the authority must prove the legality of its decision. However, in tax and customs cases, this burden is often effectively shifted to the plaintiff. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that advocates cannot always obtain the necessary documents through advocate requests, as authorities cite restricted access or confidentiality. Even when the court orders the production of evidence, it may arrive slowly or not arrive on time.

Today, nearly every other case is heard in writing. This conserves court resources, but advocates lose the opportunity to present their position and its nuances orally to the court. Therefore, according to the President of the UNBA, BCU, if a plaintiff insists on oral proceedings, such motions should be granted.

In conclusion, L. Izovitova emphasized the guarantees of the legal profession. According to her, advocates are not always able to fully safeguard the guarantees established by the Law on Advocacy, the Code of Administrative Procedure, and other legislation. She emphasized that when an advocate has the opportunity to present their position not only in writing but also orally, this is crucial for the soundness of the decision and the protection of the client.