Judicial proceedings without an electronic account: the consequences of ignoring the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS)

Despite the fact that this provision of the law is no longer new, in practice we observe that many companies are unaware of or choose to ignore the obligation to register an electronic account.. Therefore, we will review and remind who exactly is subject to this obligation, what are the risks of  non-compliance, and what position the courts take on registration with the UJITS .

Main changes

The changes introduced  by this Law affected the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine), the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and later the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.

The main purpose of these changes is to ensure faster access to justice and facilitate the exchange of documents, which, in turn, will speed up the consideration of cases in courts.

The Law provides for mandatory registration in the UJITS for the following persons:

• lawyers;
• notaries;
• public and private bailiffs;
• arbitration managers;
• court experts;
• state and local government bodies;
• other legal entities registered in accordance with Ukrainian law.

At the same time, individuals and individual entrepreneurs can register their electronic accounts voluntarily.

Consequences of violating the requirements of the Law

At first glance, it may seem that the requirement of the Law to create an electronic account is insignificant and its violation will not affect anything, but failure to comply with this requirement may lead to the following consequences:

• lack of an electronic account when filing a lawsuit or an appeal or cassation complaint: the court will leave the document without movement and set a deadline for correcting the deficiencies. If, within the period specified by the court, the person does not register an account with the UJITS and does not provide the court with relevant evidence, the court will return the procedural document to the applicant and refrain from considering the case;
• lack of an account when filing a written statement or motion: the court will leave the statement without consideration, but this does not deprive the person of the right to resubmit such a document to the court;
• lack of an account when filing a response: if the defendant does not have a registered account, the court may proceed without considering the response.

It is important to note that an electronic account is required even when submitting documents through a lawyer. That is, even if the parties to the dispute have a lawyer responsible for submitting documents to the court, such a person must still be registered with the UJITS .

For example, in case No. 914/1258/22, the Supreme Court expressed its position on the procedural consequences provided for by the CPC of Ukraine in the event of an appeal to the court with a document from a lawyer representing the interests of a person in a case who is required to register an electronic account in accordance with the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine but had not done so as of the date the document was prepared and signed.

“The case files established that on November 28, 2023, the representative of Respondent-3 filed a response to the cassation complaint. According to response No. 349633 dated December 14, 2023, Respondent-3 registered an electronic account in the UJITS Electronic Court subsystem on December 11, 2023. The panel of judges of the Cassation Commercial Court  noted that the Supreme Court cannot accept for consideration the response to the cassation complaint filed by the representative of Respondent-3, as on the date of preparation and signing of the response, Respondent-3 had not fulfilled the mandatory obligation for all legal entities participating in the judicial process to register an electronic account in the UJITS Electronic Court subsystem in accordance with Part 6 of Article 6 of the CPC of Ukraine.

Thus, if documents are submitted on behalf of a legal entity that has not registered an electronic account, even if the documents are submitted by a lawyer who has an electronic account in UJITS, the court is entitled to refuse to consider them.

Court conclusions regarding electronic document exchange

Since the introduction of changes to the legislation on registration in the UJITS , the courts have already established certain case law  that is worth paying attention to. Below are several notable conclusions.

• Possibility of submitting procedural documents to the official email address of the court

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 204/2321/22 established that the legislator allows individuals to submit procedural documents via the official email address of the court, provided that such documents are certified by the applicant’s qualified electronic signature.

The courts explain that such an application by an individual is a proper and legitimate way of applying to the court,equated with submitting documents directly through the court’s registry or traditional postal services. and should be classified as a direct application to the court.

Thus, the courts confirm that registration of individuals in the UJITS is not mandatory and such persons may use other methods of submitting documents to the court, including e-mail.

The above conclusions do not apply to lawyers, notaries, bailiffs, court experts, state authorities and local self-government bodies, or business entities in the public and municipal sectors of the economy, which are required to register their official email addresses in the UJITS .

• Sending court decisions via email

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 454/1883/22 noted that when applying to the court, an individual must clearly understand that a person who does not have a registered electronic account will receive the court decision by registered mail with notification of delivery, Therefore, in such a case, sending a court decision  to the email address indicated in the claim (or complaint) by a person who is not officially registered in the Electronic Court subsystem does not constitute proper service of the court decision.

• Time for submitting documents through the UJITS  

In case No. 227/477/21, the Supreme Court highlighted  that the sending of a document by the applicant and its receipt by the court is not necessarily a simultaneous event and may not coincide in time. The court noted that for the correct calculation of the deadline, the decisive factor is the moment when the applicant sends the relevant document by electronic means.

• The court’s right to send documents via UJITS 

While reviewing case No. 916/3572/21, the Supreme Court established that sending a copy of a court decision  to a party via the electronic account in the UJITS complies with the provisions of the law, and the court decision is considered to have been delivered to the party. The Resolutionalso states that if a party to the case has a registered account, the electronic form of serving court decisions becomes mandatory and takes precedence over the paper format, which can only be applied based on a separate request from the party.

Conclusion

The introduction of mandatory registration in the UJITS is an important step towards the digitization of the judicial process in Ukraine. At the same time, the lack of an electronic office can have serious procedural consequences for participants in the judicial process. Given the established judicial proceedings.  Considering the established case law, it is advisable to take care of registration, it is advisable to register in the system in advance to avoid unnecessary difficulties and delays.

Author:

Anastasiia Klian, Counsel of Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW, Attorney at law