Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Civil Cassation Court, in case 824/73/25 dated 6 October 2026

RULING

6 October 2026, Kyiv, Case No. 824/73/25, Proceeding No. 61-8460av26

The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court: D. D. Luspenyk (Judge-Rapporteur), H. V. Kolomiiets, Yu. V. Cherniak, has considered the application of the representative of the company Himbalt Trade OU (Republic of Estonia), attorney Yuliia Viktorivna Vaha, for participation in the court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises in the case concerning the application of the private enforcement officer of the enforcement district of the city of Kyiv, Vladyslav Hennadiiovych Tatarchenko, against Limited Liability Company “Ukrplatinum” for levying execution on funds belonging to a person who owes a debt to the debtor, in the case concerning the application of the company Himbalt Trade OU (Republic of Estonia) for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 30 May 2025 in arbitration case No. 432/2024 on the claim of the company Himbalt Trade OU (Republic of Estonia) against Limited Liability Company “Mega Grupp” (Ukraine) for recovery of a debt, on the appeal of the private enforcement officer of the enforcement district of the city of Kyiv, Vladyslav Hennadiiovych Tatarchenko, against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 22 May 2026, rendered by Judge S. M. Verlanov,

ESTABLISHED:

In June 2026, the private enforcement officer of the enforcement district of the city of Kyiv, V. H. Tatarchenko, applied to the Supreme Court as the court of appeal with an appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 22 May 2026, in which he requests that the contested court decision be set aside, that the proceedings in the case on his application be closed on the ground that an application for closing the proceedings in the case had been filed, and that Limited Liability Company “Ukrplatinum” be refused its application for recovery of court costs.

By the ruling of the Supreme Court of 3 August 2025, appellate proceedings in the case were opened after the rectification of the deficiencies of the appeal indicated in the ruling of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2026. The case was requisitioned from the Kyiv Court of Appeal. A copy of the appeal and the documents attached to it was sent to the other participants in the case, the right to file a response to the appeal was explained, and a time limit was granted for filing it.

In August 2026, the case was received by the Supreme Court.

By the ruling of the Supreme Court of 8 September 2026, the preparatory actions in the case were completed and the case was scheduled for consideration at an open court hearing with notice to the participants in the case on 8 October 2026 at 10:00.

On 5 October 2026, the Supreme Court received, through the “Electronic Court” system, the application of the representative of the company Himbalt Trade OU (Republic of Estonia), attorney Yu. V. Vaha, for participation in the court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises, which was generated in the “Electronic Court” system on 2 October 2026. The said application was sent to the other participants in the case.

In the said application, the representative of the company Himbalt Trade OU (Republic of Estonia) refers to the provisions of Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and requests that she be enabled to participate in the court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises using her own technical means.

Pursuant to Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a participant in the case or their representative has the right to participate in a court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises or in the premises of another court, provided that the court has the relevant technical capability, which the court indicates in the ruling on the opening of proceedings in the case, except where the appearance of that participant in the case at the court hearing has been deemed mandatory by the court.

A participant in the case or their representative shall file an application for participation in a court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises or in the premises of another court no later than five days before the court hearing. A copy of the application shall be sent to the other participants in the case within the same time limit. An application for participation in a court hearing by videoconference in the premises of another court must specify the court in which it is to be conducted.

The judge (Judge-Rapporteur) considers the application of a participant in the case or their representative for participation in a court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises or in the premises of another court without notice to the participants in the case. A ruling is rendered following the consideration of the application.

A participant in the case or their representative participates in a court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises using their own technical means and means of electronic identification with a high level of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of the Laws of Ukraine “On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Management” and “On Electronic Identification and Electronic Trust Services”, in the manner prescribed by the Regulation on the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System and/or the regulations governing the functioning of its individual subsystems (modules). If a participant in the case or their representative does not have the means of electronic identification provided for in paragraph one of this part, such person shall be identified in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the Unified State Demographic Register and Documents Confirming Citizenship of Ukraine, Certifying Identity or Special Status”.

The risks of technical impossibility of participating in a videoconference outside the court premises, interruption of the connection, and the like are borne by the participant in the case or their representative who filed the relevant application, except where the court, after the court hearing has been scheduled or during such hearing, has lost the technical capability to conduct the videoconference.

The technical means and technologies used by the court and the participants in the court proceedings must ensure proper image and sound quality, as well as information security. The participants in the court proceedings must be enabled to hear and see the course of the court hearing, to ask questions and receive answers, and to exercise other procedural rights and duties.

In view of the foregoing, the above application is to be granted.

Guided by Articles 212, 260 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court,

RULED:

To grant the application of the representative of the company Himbalt Trade OU (Republic of Estonia), attorney Yuliia Viktorivna Vaha, for participation in the court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises.

To conduct the court hearing scheduled for 8 October 2026 at 10:00 with the participation of the representative of the company Himbalt Trade OU (Republic of Estonia), attorney Yuliia Viktorivna Vaha, by videoconference outside the court premises using her own technical means and electronic signature.

The videoconference will be conducted by means of the “EASYCON” application, which can be installed from the web link: https://vkz.court.gov.ua.

To participate in the court hearing by videoconference, it is necessary to use appropriate technical means with access to the Internet that allow the transmission of audio signal and video images.

To explain that the risks of technical impossibility of participating in a videoconference outside the court premises, interruption of the connection, and the like are borne by the participant in the case who filed the relevant application.

The ruling enters into legal force upon its signing and is not subject to appeal.

Judges: D. D. Luspenyk

H. V. Kolomiiets

Yu. V. Cherniak