1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against a decision on an administrative offense in the field of road transport safety, recorded in automatic mode.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly returned the appeal to the lawyer on the grounds of the absence of a handwritten signature on the warrant, since the appeal was filed through the “Electronic Court” system and signed with a qualified electronic signature. The court of cassation emphasized that, according to current legislation, in particular, taking into account the amendments to the Regulation on the Warrant for the Provision of Legal Aid, introduced by the decision of the Bar Council of Ukraine dated June 08, 2024, in the case of submitting documents through the “Electronic Court” system using an electronic signature, an additional handwritten signature on the warrant is not required. The court also noted that ensuring the right to judicial protection requires promoting pluralism in the ways of interaction between courts and participants in the judicial process, especially in the context of digital transformation and martial law. The court took into account that an electronic warrant signed with a qualified electronic signature is proper confirmation of the lawyer’s authority. The court departed from the previous legal position expressed in the rulings of January 26, 2023, in case No. 450/605/22, of February 07, 2023, in case No. 466/77/22, of December 22, 2022, in case No. 450/569/22, and of February 07, 2023, in case No. 466/487/22.
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for further consideration to the appellate court.
