Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in the format of a professional legal commentary:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s return of an appeal due to the allegedly improper execution of an attorney’s warrant submitted in electronic form.
2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court erroneously applied obsolete practice, failing to take into account the amendments to the Regulation on the Attorney’s Warrant introduced by the decision of the Ukrainian National Bar Association Council dated 08.06.2024. The Court emphasized that in the context of the digitalization of justice, a warrant attached to an electronic appeal does not require a separate “physical” signature if it is signed with an electronic signature or is an attachment to a document authenticated by such a signature. The Supreme Court underscored that the mandatory details of the warrant were present, and their validity can be verified via the official website of the Ukrainian National Bar Association. It was also noted that the legal position relied upon by the appellate court had been formed prior to the update of the rules for executing warrants. Thus, the return of the appeal was deemed an unlawful restriction on access to justice. The Supreme Court, in this resolution, effectively established a departure from its previous position (set forth in case No. 466/76/22), which required the presence of a separate signature on the warrant, as it has lost its relevance following the change in regulatory framework by the Ukrainian National Bar Association Council.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for further proceedings.
