The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal recognized illegal the issuing of extracts from the SRAU by an unauthorized Bar Council of Kyiv

The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal recognized illegal the issuing of extracts from the SRAU by an unauthorized Bar Council of Kyiv. The court also acknowledged legal the refusal to submit data to the SRAU on the basis of an extract issued by the authorized council of advocates of Kyiv
The resolution was adopted on June 12, 2019, under the appeal of the UNBA to the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of December 28, 2018 in the case of an administrative case of an individual to the UNBA. The third person in the case was the Bar Council of Kyiv.
The District Administrative Court of Kyiv, by its decision of December 28, 2018, recognized unlawful the exclusion of public information on a advocate-plaintiff in the Single Register of Advocates of Ukraine and ordered UNBA to restore information about it in public on the official website of the Ukrainian National Bar Association.
At the appellate instance, UNBA appealed against such a decision, indicating that the provision of extracts from the SRAU by the first level administrator - the Bar Council of Kyiv - without their confirmation by the BCU with the display on the UNBA website in general is to provide inaccurate information and is contrary to Art. 17 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Bar and Advocacy", which corresponds to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, set forth in the resolution dated November 7, 2018 in the case No. 607/3128/16-ц.
The panel of judges of the Court of Appeal revoked the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of December 28, 2018 and adopted a new ruling refusing to satisfy the administrative claim to the UNBA.
During the consideration of the case in the court of appeals it was established that an extract from the SRAU series AA No. 004650 dated August 10, 2016 (the time of formation of the extract 11:05), was formed and signed by the Head of the Bar Council of Kyiv Rafalska I.V., to which the plaintiff refers, does not confirm the completion of the aforementioned legally established procedure for the introduction of information about an advocate to the SRAU and their disclosure on the official website of the UNBA as active and open, but indicates that the regional council has made certain actions as the first level administrator. Consequently, such an excuse, in the sense of the requirements of the CAP of Ukraine, is inappropriate and inadmissible evidence of the subject of evidence in this case.
"System analysis of the set legal norms gives grounds to assert that the legislation regulates a two-stage procedure for the introduction of advocates' data to the SRAU: the first level administrator - the Council of Advocates of the region and the second level administrator - the BCU, which is authorized to exercise control over the activities of the advocates of the regions for data entry to SRAU, providing extracts from SRAU and ensuring the maintenance of the official website of UNBA. At the same time, only after the BCU's approval of the data submitted to the SRAU by the bar council of the region, they acquire the status of the information, become active and open and subject to disclosure on the official website of the UNBA", - the court ruling says. At the same time, the court refers to the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated November 7, 2018 in the case No. 607/3128/16-ц.
Also, the panel of judges notes that at the moment of the petition of the plaintiff to the Bar Council of Kyiv with a statement on the submission to the SRAU of the data about him, namely on June 13, 2016, BCU had already adopted the decision No. 156 dated June 11, 2016, which was precluded precisely the Bar Council of Kyiv to provide information on persons who have received certificates of the right to practice law on the basis of certificates of completion of the qualification examination issued by the non-authorized body - the QDBC starting from November 12, 2012. The specified prohibition extended to the submission of information about the plaintiff to the SRAU by the Bar Council of Kyiv.
In accordance with the requirements of Law No. 5076-VI, the BCU decision No. 156 dated June 11, 2016 was obligatory for the said bar council of the region to be implemented, and it was authorized by the BCU to exercise control over the activities of bar councils of the regions, that is, the Bar Council of Kyiv, concerning data entry to SRAU and provision of extracts from SRAU.
The plaintiff in the case did not provide any evidence to confirm that the decision No. 156 dated June 11, 2016 was unlawful and/or canceled.
"Taking into account the foregoing, taking into account the legal position of the Supreme Court, set forth in the resolution of November 8, 2018, the panel of judges came to the conclusion that there was no legal basis for the satisfaction of the claim, since information about the plaintiff in general was not subject to submission by the Bar Council of Ukraine to the SRAU, and in case of their discovery - were subject to immediate removal by the Bar Council of Ukraine as administrator of the second level", - stated in the court ruling.
The decision came into force from the date of its adoption and may be appealed within thirty days from the date of the complete court decision is issued by submitting a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.
Popular news

Self-government
The HCJ continues to ignore the legal deadlines for forming the Competition Commission of the HQCJ
The High Council of Justice continues to violate the statutory deadlines for forming a new competition commission to select members of the Competition Commission of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine.

Advocacy
Another conflict with the TCC: an advocate's leg was broken and his client jumped out of a window
On June 19, at the premises of the military medical commission, where a bus from the Krasnograd Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support delivered several people, an incident occurred involving the use of physical force against an advocate.

Advocacy
Independence of advocacy and accountability of expertise: different models, shared responsibility
Two different models of professional organization coexist in Ukraine: advocacy with established self-government and judicial and expert activities that remain under state control. How can approaches be balanced, the openness of expert opinions ensured, and effective interaction between specialists established?

Advocacy
The Bar Council of Ukraine appealed to the High Council of Justice due to delays in forming the Competition Commission of t…
On June 13, 2025, Lidiya Izovitova, President of the Bar Council of Ukraine, addressed Grigory Usik, Head of the High Council of Justice, regarding the violation of the deadlines for forming a new composition of the Competition Commission for the selection of members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine.

Advocacy
UNBA calls for compliance with Council of Europe standards for the legal profession
The recently approved roadmap for EU accession in terms of bar reform refers to non-existent European standards and was adopted in violation of international principles. Therefore, before talking about changes, it is necessary to compare the current model of the bar with the Council of Europe standards embodied in the Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer.

Advocacy
Andriy Osipov appointed head of the Ukrainian State Film Agency
The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has appointed Andriy Osipov as head of the Ukrainian State Film Agency.

Advocacy
Mobilization of advocates in court: UNBA records another case of pressure
The Ukrainian advocacy has once again faced extrajudicial influence on advocates with the aim of obstructing the exercise of their legitimate powers related to the provision of professional legal assistance to clients.

Advocacy
BCU demands verification of authenticity of SSU letter on «dangerous» advocacy
The Bar Council of Ukraine will appeal to the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Vasyl Malyuk, regarding the verification of information about «negative trends in the legal profession» disseminated by some media outlets on behalf of the SSU.
Publications

Ihor Kolesnykov A BRIEF SUMMARY REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDER ON EXTENDED CONFISCATION IN LATVIA REGARDING FINANCIAL ASSETS OF…

Valentyn Gvozdiy WORKING IN A WAR ZONE

Lydia Izovitova Formula of perfection

Sergiy Vylkov Our judicial system is so built that courts do not trust advocates

Iryna Vasylyk Advocacy in the proclamation of Independence of Ukraine

Oleksandr DULSKY When we cross the border of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court, we get into another department of the National Anti-Corruption…

Vadym Krasnyk The UNBA will work, and all obstacles and restrictions are only temporary inconveniences

Lydia Izovitova Interview with Lydia Izovitova on the occasion of the 8th anniversary of the founding of UNBA: We are the voice of t…