Subject of the dispute – challenging the refusal to restore the time limit for appealing the investigating judge’s ruling.
Main arguments of the court: First, the lawyer participated in the court session via video conference and repeatedly requested to be sent the full text of the ruling, but her requests were left without proper response. Second, the court referred to a legal conclusion that a person’s lack of awareness of the reasons for the decision may be a valid reason for restoring the procedural time limit. Third, the appellate court did not conduct a comprehensive investigation of the case materials and prematurely denied the lawyer’s motion.
The court decided to cancel the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and assign a new review in the appellate instance.
