In brief

On 18 October 2023, the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Mandatory Registration and Use of Electronic Offices in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System” (“Law”) was enacted.

The Law amends the procedural codes (Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine (CoPC), Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine (CiPC) and Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAP)) and provides for the mandatory registration of electronic offices in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS) by all legal entities.

At the same time, according to the transitional provisions of the Law, the specified obligation for legal entities of private form of ownership shall be implemented in the commercial procedure from 18 October 2023, and in civil and administrative procedures from 21 February 2024.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Please note that by the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Clarification of Obligations of Participant to Court Case”, adopted on 19 October 2023, it was specified that the obligation to register an electronic office applies only to legal entities registered under the laws of Ukraine.

Procedural consequences of failure to register the electronic office in the UJITS

In accordance with the provisions of the CoPC (as in force on 18 October 2023), the absence of a registered electronic office in the UJITS may entail a number of negative procedural consequences, particularly as follows:

i.     The court shall leave without movement a claim, appellate and cassation complaint, application for review of a case upon discovery of new facts or upon exceptional circumstances

ii.    The court shall return without consideration a request for securing evidence or claim, cancellation of a court order, cancellation of an arbitral award, enforcement of an arbitral award, and other procedural applications, motions and objections

iii.   The court shall deny issuing a court order

iv.   The other party to the case shall be exempted from the obligation to send copies of documents to an entity that failed to register an electronic office (in such case where a party submits the documents to the court in electronic form via an electronic office)

v.    The court shall consider the case based on the available materials (without considering a statement of defense) if the statement of defense was submitted by an entity that failed to register an electronic office and did not provide valid reasons for not complying with this obligation. 

Please note that the specified procedural consequences will also be applied by the courts in cases where the attorney represents the interests of an entity that failed to register an electronic office. 

The CiPC and CAP also provide for similar provisions regarding the procedural consequences for the submission of documents by an entity that is obliged to register an electronic office but fails to do so.

Considering the above, to avoid the above-mentioned procedural consequences, legal entities registered under the laws of Ukraine have to register their electronic offices through the UJITS, which can be done via the following link. Instructions for registering an electronic office are available through the link.  

Further, legal entities have to indicate information on the presence of an electronic office when submitting the procedural documents to the court. At the same time, registration with the UJITS does not deprive the entity of the right to submit the documents to the court and to receive copies of the court decisions (under a separate request) in hard copy.

Click here to read the Ukranian version.

Author

Ihor Siusel has more than 15 years of practical experience, 12 of which as a legal advisor in major local and international law firms where he consistently practiced law in dispute resolution, namely international and domestic arbitration, litigation, enforcement of court judgments and arbitral awards and bankruptcy law. Mr. Siusel advises and represents local and foreign clients in commercial, real estate, construction, corporate, IP, tax, customs, labor, insurance, loan, maritime, aviation, telecom, product liability and bankruptcy disputes, including complex cross-border disputes. His clients span a number of industries including mining, oil and gas, steel production, food production, publishing, ship building, telecom, pharma, IT, construction, transport, agriculture, distribution and retail, insurance, banking and finance.

Author

Kseniia Prokhur is a counsel in Baker McKenzie's Dispute Resolution Practice Group in Kyiv. In addition to her professional activity, Kseniia delivers lectures on procedural law at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy and the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Kseniia represents and advises clients in various types of commercial, corporate and employment litigation in Ukraine, and has significant experience in enforcing the awards of the most prominent international arbitration institutions. Kseniia specifically focuses on challenging the acts of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and advises clients on all related legal aspects.

Author

Nataliya Lipska is a junior associate in Baker McKenzie's Dispute Resolution Practice Group in Kyiv.