Subject of the Dispute: Recovery of Credit Debt from an Individual in Favor of “Bright Investment” Company under a Contract Concluded with OTP Bank.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considers that the appellate court incorrectly returned the appellate complaint due to the formal absence of a signature on the lawyer’s warrant. The court referred to a new decision by the Bar Council of Ukraine, which changed the rules for executing warrants, and to the ECHR practice regarding the inadmissibility of excessive formalism in the consideration of procedural documents. An electronic signature on the accompanying document is now considered sufficient confirmation of the lawyer’s powers.
Court Decision: To cancel the ruling of the appellate court and refer the case for a new review to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
