Should the court's discretion to extend the deadlines be limited?
The assessment of the validity of the reasons for missing a procedural deadline is within the exclusive discretion of the court that decides the relevant procedural issue. Today, the presence or absence of valid reasons for missing a procedural deadline is assessed by the court's internal conviction.
This was pointed out by the Committee of the Ukrainian National Bar Association on Administrative Law and Procedure following the analysis of the draft Law No. 12072 dated 27.09.2024 «On Amendments to Article 363 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine regarding the renewal by the court of the missed deadline for filing an application for review of a court decision due to newly discovered or exceptional circumstances».
The document proposes to clarify the rules on the procedure and deadline for filing an application for review of a court decision due to newly discovered or exceptional circumstances. Specifically, it would oblige the court assessing the validity of the grounds for missing the deadline to assess the circumstances that served as an obstacle to timely filing an application with the court in connection with:
- the duration of the period that the person missed;
- behavior of the person during this period;
- actions taken by such a person and whether these actions are related to preparations for going to court.
The authors of the legislative initiative note that this position is reflected in the decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation dated January 18, 2024 in case No. 520/10732/21 and should be enshrined in law.
The UNBA noted that the application of the criterion of good cause is provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure for all procedural terms, except when the Code establishes the impossibility of such renewal.
For example, this criterion is applied when renewing the missed deadline for submitting evidence, filing an administrative claim, appeal and cassation appeal, assessing the grounds for failure to appear in court, and when resolving other issues where the legislator limits the performance of a certain procedural action to a certain procedural time limit.
Instead, none of the provisions of the CAP contains a mandatory list of circumstances to be assessed by the court when deciding whether to renew a certain missed procedural term. This reflects the position of the legislator, according to which the assessment of the validity of the reasons for a particular missed procedural term is within the exclusive discretion of the court.
At the same time, with the adoption of amendments to the procedural codes and the Law «On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges» in 2018, the obligation of all persons to take into account the law enforcement opinions of the Supreme Court was introduced.
Thus, when deciding on the renewal of the missed procedural term specified in part 1 of Article 361 of the CAP, the administrative court is already obliged to be guided by the said opinion of the Supreme Court.
The full comments and suggestions of the UNBA to the Draft Law No. 12072 can be found at the link.
Popular news
Abroad
UNBA office opens in EU capital
To strengthen the institutional presence of the Ukrainian advocacy community at the European level, an office of the Ukrainian National Bar Association has been opened in Brussels (Belgium), which will serve as a permanent platform for dialogue with European partners.
Guarantees of the practice of law
Impunity for public stigmatization of advocates violates the constitutional right to defense
The prohibition of identifying an advocate with a client is an international standard enshrined in the Law «On advocacy and legal practice». However, without accountability, this guarantee does not work, which poses a direct threat to the realization of the right to defense and the principle of adversarial proceedings.
Legislation
Inheritance of a share in joint property and more: advocates have made comments
In the event of the death of one of the subjects of joint shared ownership, the shares of each of the co-owners in the joint shared ownership shall be deemed equal, unless otherwise agreed between them, by law, or by a court decision.
Legislation
Implementation of the Roadmap: the composition of the working group ensures a high level of expertise
The composition of the Working Group on the implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law in relation to advocacy demonstrates the high institutional level of the experts involved by the Ukrainian National Bar Association in the formation of a package of decisions.
Legislation
UNBA initiatives to implement the Roadmap were supported by international experts
International experts who participated in the inaugural meeting of the Working Group on the implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law in advocacy and agreed to join it expressed their support for the initiative of the Ukrainian National Bar Association.
Legislation
How will the group responsible for implementing the Roadmap for advocacy operate?
The working group on the implementation of the Roadmap on the rule of law in the area of advocacy will operate at several levels: plenary meetings as a platform for adopting framework decisions, a coordination bureau for compiling documents and calendar control, and thematic subgroups for preparing norms and their justification. International experts will verify the results against European standards and «red lines».
Legislation
Advocacy is a responsible entity, not a critic of reform — V. Gvozdiy
The Roadmap on the Rule of Law is not a basis for restructuring the model of advocacy, but a framework for verifying and improving the already European-oriented system. At the same time, part of the work has already been done, so further progress should be made in the form of coordinated and practical decisions.
Legislation
Vatras on the implementation of the Roadmap: only advocates should create their own destiny
Work on implementing the Roadmap in relation to advocacy should be based on the participation of the professional community itself, and key tasks should be structured in such a way as to avoid mixing processes that differ in content and procedure.
Publications
Volodymyr Matsko Extradition as a systemic form of rights violations
Victoria Yakusha, Law and Business The anti-corruption vertical cannot «take care» of the Bar as an institution, - acting head of the HQDCB
Censor.net Protecting advocates – protecting justice: addressing concerns about the new law
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
