1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a decision on an administrative offense, namely its cancellation.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff’s lawyer filed the claim through the “Electronic Court” system, attaching a warrant certified by an electronic signature, which complies with the requirements of current legislation. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the changes to the Regulations on the warrant for the provision of legal aid, which allow the warrant to be certified by an electronic signature if it is submitted as an attachment to an electronic document signed by the same electronic signature. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should promote pluralism of ways of interaction between courts and participants in the judicial process, especially in conditions of martial law and intensive digitalization. The court also noted that the practice of the Supreme Court, which was referred to by the courts of previous instances, was formed before the amendments to the Regulations on the warrant. **:** The court departed from the previous position regarding the requirements for signing the warrant.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
