1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for consumed electricity, 3% annual interest, and inflation losses.
2. The appellate court returned the appeal because the attorney did not provide sufficient documents to confirm their authority to represent the defendant’s interests in the appellate court, considering the legal aid agreement insufficient confirmation. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, noting that according to the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Advocate Practice,” the legal aid agreement is a document certifying the attorney’s authority. The Court also referred to the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court of January 20, 2025, which states that the absence of an indication of the legal aid agreement in the Civil Procedure Code does not exclude the attorney’s right to confirm authority with this agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of evidence of the invalidity of the certificate of the right to practice law, the court has no grounds to doubt the status of the representative.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case back to the appellate court to decide on the opening of appellate proceedings.
