Ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal in case 824/65/26 dated 6 October 2026

||

||

KYIV COURT OF APPEAL case No. 824/65/26 proceeding No. 22-vk/824/54/2026

RULING

On 6 October 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal, composed of judge K. P. Prykhodko of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases, considered the application of the representative of Inerco Trade S.A., attorney Taras Oleksandrovych Novosad, for his participation in the court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises using his own technical means in the case on the claim of Inerco Trade S.A. (Swiss Confederation) against Verentrade SL (Kingdom of Spain) and the citizen of Ukraine PERSON_1 for recovery of debt under the Assignment of Claim Agreement of 22 December 2023 No. 22/12, on the application of Inerco Trade S.A., represented by attorney Taras Oleksandrovych Novosad, 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 23 June 2026, and found:

this case is pending before the Kyiv Court of Appeal and has been scheduled for hearing on 12 October 2026 at 11:00.

On 3 October 2026, attorney T. O. Novosad, acting on behalf of Inerco Trade S.A., sent to the email address of the Kyiv Court of Appeal an application for his participation in the court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises using his own technical means (registered on 5 October 2026 under incoming No. 124754).

The application is based on the martial law imposed on the territory of Ukraine, which gives rise to real risks to the life and health of participants in the proceedings while they are in public premises in the event of an air raid alert.

However, the said application cannot be accepted for consideration by the Kyiv Court of Appeal and is to be returned to the person who filed it, for the following reasons.

On 18 October 2023, the Law of Ukraine No. 3200-IX of 29 June 2023 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Mandatory Registration and Use of Electronic Cabinets in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System or Its Separate Subsystem (Module) That Ensures the Exchange of Documents" entered into force; it was developed to introduce mandatory registration and use of electronic cabinets in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (hereinafter, the UJITS) by members of the legal professions, legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, since persons who are obliged by law to register official electronic addresses in the UJITS have been delaying the performance of their obligation.

Article 14 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine provides, in particular, that the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System operates in the courts.

Statements of claim and other applications, complaints and other procedural documents provided for by law that are submitted to the court and may be the subject of judicial consideration are, in the order of their receipt, subject to mandatory registration in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System on the day the documents are received.

The Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System, in accordance with the law, ensures the exchange of documents (sending and receiving of documents) in electronic form between courts, between the court and the participants in the judicial process, and between the participants in the judicial process, as well as the recording of the judicial process and the participation of the participants in the judicial process in the court hearing by videoconference.

Registration in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System or its separate subsystem (module) that ensures the exchange of documents does not deprive a person of the right to submit documents to the court in paper form.

A person who has registered an electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System or its separate subsystem (module) that ensures the exchange of documents may submit procedural and other documents and perform other procedural actions in electronic form exclusively by means of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System or its separate subsystem (module) that ensures the exchange of documents, using his or her own electronic signature equated to a handwritten signature in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On Electronic Trust Services", unless otherwise provided by this Code.

Parts 5 and 6 of Article 43 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine establish that documents (including procedural documents, written and electronic evidence, etc.) may be submitted to the court, and procedural actions may be performed by the participants in the case, in electronic form using the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System, except in cases provided for by this Code.

Procedural documents in electronic form must be submitted by the participants in the case to the court using the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System in the manner determined by the Regulation on the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System and/or the regulations determining the procedure for the operation of its separate subsystems (modules).

Technical requirements for the forms of electronic documents and their annexes, and restrictions on their size, format and other characteristics, are established by the Electronic Court User Manual.

Pursuant to Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a written application, motion or objection is signed by the applicant or his or her representative.

Pursuant to Article 183(4) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court, having established that a written application (motion, objection) has been submitted without compliance with the requirements of part one or part two of this Article, returns it to the applicant without consideration.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in paragraphs 12.1-12.3 of its resolution of 13 September 2023 in case No. 204/2321/22, stated that "the legislator permits a natural person to submit, on an equal footing with paper form, in particular, appeals in electronic form, with their mandatory authentication by the participant's own qualified electronic signature, and to submit such a document through the 'Electronic Court' and 'Electronic Cabinet' subsystems, or by using an official electronic address with certification by a qualified electronic signature.

An application by a natural person to the court through the court's official electronic address with a procedural electronic document signed with an electronic digital signature is a proper and lawful method of directly applying to the court, which is equated with directly applying to the court through the court registry or by traditional postal means and must be classified precisely as a direct application to the court.

The above conclusions do not apply to attorneys, notaries, private enforcement officers, forensic experts, state authorities and local self-government bodies, or business entities of the state and municipal sectors of the economy, which register their official electronic addresses in the UJITS on a mandatory basis.".

Thus, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that where a party to a case applies to the court through its representative who is an attorney, the attorney is entitled to submit procedural documents to the court in two ways: in paper form, and in electronic form by means of the 'Electronic Court' and 'Electronic Cabinet' subsystems. At the same time, applying to the court by submitting procedural documents in electronic form using the court's official electronic address with certification by a qualified electronic signature does not apply to attorneys acting as representatives of a party to a case who is a natural person.

In December 2023, the Kyiv Court of Appeal published an announcement on its website on the completion of the initial stage of the integration of the Kyiv Court of Appeal into the UJITS modules, namely the 'Electronic Court' and 'Electronic Cabinet' subsystems, and the establishment of exchange between the ASDS (automated court document management system) and the Electronic Court.

It appears from the case materials that the motion for holding the court hearing by videoconference was submitted by the representative of Inerco Trade S.A., attorney T. O. Novosad, to the Kyiv Court of Appeal in electronic form by sending it to the official email address of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, that is, without using the 'Electronic Court' and 'Electronic Cabinet' subsystems.

Therefore, attorney T. O. Novosad, acting on behalf of Inerco Trade S.A., could have submitted the motion for holding the court hearing by videoconference: 1) in written form; 2) in electronic form using the 'Electronic Court' service.

In view of the foregoing, the said motion was submitted by attorney T. O. Novosad, acting on behalf of Inerco Trade S.A., by email, which gives grounds to assert that the applicant used a method of applying to the court not provided for by the procedural legislation in force; therefore, the said motion is deemed not to have been signed by the person who filed it and is to be returned without consideration.

Guided by Article 183 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of appeal ruled:

The motion of the representative of Inerco Trade S.A., attorney Taras Oleksandrovych Novosad, for holding the court hearing by videoconference shall be returned without consideration.

The ruling of the court enters into legal force from the date of its adoption and is not subject to appeal.

Judge K. P. Prykhodko

||

||