Case No. 757/21139/23-p
P O S T A N O V A
IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE
On June 14, 2023, the judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv S.I. Smik, after reviewing the case materials received from the Kyiv Region Bar Council on bringing to administrative responsibility:
PERSON_1, chairman of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Commodity Exchange "Kyiv Universal Exchange", according to Part 5 of Art. 212-3 KUpAP,
On May 17, 2023, I.H. Lishnevsky, authorized by the Kyiv Region Bar Council. a protocol on an administrative offense series KS No. 00259 was drawn up, according to which PERSON_1, being the head of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Commodity Exchange "Kyiv Universal Exchange", at the place of work at the address: Kyiv, st. General Almazov, 18/7, violated the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 24 of the ZU "On Advocacy and Advocacy", namely, after receiving a lawyer's request on 04/03/2023 from lawyer M.S. Terekhov, he did not provide information in response to it within the time limit established by law.
Liability for the specified administrative offense provided for in Part 5 of Article 212-3 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
PERSON_1 did not appear at the court session, he was properly notified of the time and place of the hearing, and did not report the reasons for his non-appearance.
After examining the case materials, the judge reached the following conclusion.
According to the requirements of Article 245 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the task of proceedings in cases on administrative offenses is: timely, comprehensive, complete and objective clarification of the circumstances of each case, its resolution in strict accordance with the law.
In accordance with Article 280 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the body (official) when considering a case of an administrative offense is obliged to find out: whether an administrative offense was committed, whether this person is guilty of committing it, whether he is subject to administrative responsibility, whether there are circumstances that improve and burden responsibility, whether property damage has been caused, whether there are grounds for transferring materials about an administrative offense for consideration by a public organization, labor collective, as well as to find out other circumstances that are of significant importance for the correct resolution of the case.
According to Article 251 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, evidence in a case of an administrative offense is any factual data on the basis of which the body (official) establishes the presence or absence of an administrative offense, the guilt of a given person in committing it, and other circumstances in accordance with the procedure established by law. which are important for the correct decision of the case.
According to Part 2 of Art. 24 of the Law "On Advocacy and Advocacy", heads of enterprises, institutions, organizations to which a lawyer's request has been sent are obliged to provide the lawyer with information and copies of documents, except for information with limited access and copies of documents, no later than five working days from the day of receiving the request , which contain information with restricted access.
In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, violation of the lawyer's right to information is: unlawful refusal to provide information; untimely or incomplete provision of information; providing information that does not correspond to reality.
Thus, it can be seen from the case materials that the last day of the deadline for providing an answer to the lawyer's request was 04/07/2023, but as of the time of drafting the protocol of the answer by the lawyer M.S. Terekhov. no response was received to the specified lawyer's request.
Thus, the guilt of PERSON_1 in the committed offense is confirmed by the case materials, namely: the data of the protocol of the KS series No. 00259 dated 05/17/2023, the data of the lawyer's request, the check, the return message with a note about the delivery of the postal item, an extract from the website of PJSC "Ukrposhta" service "Tracking" by the track number of the postal shipment.
After examining the case materials, I come to the conclusion that the actions of PERSON_1 constitute an administrative offense, provided for in Part 5 of Art. 212-3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, his guilt has been fully proven.
When choosing the type of administrative penalty against PERSON_1, the nature of the offense committed, the identity of the offender, and the degree of his guilt are taken into account.
According to Art. 34, 35 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine, circumstances mitigating or aggravating the responsibility of PERSON_1 have not been established.
Taking into account the fact that the administrative penalty is a measure of responsibility and is applied for the purpose of educating the person who committed an administrative offense, as well as preventing the commission of new offenses both by the offender himself and by other persons, the court came to the conclusion that in order to educate the offender and prevent him from committing of new offenses, an administrative fine within the scope of the sanction of the article is necessary and sufficient.
Collect a court fee from PERSON_1.
On the basis of the above and guided by Art. 36, 212-3, 221, 275-280, 283-287 KUpAP,
PERSON_1 to be found guilty of committing an administrative offense provided for in Part 5 of Art. 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine and bring to administrative responsibility in the form of a fine in the amount of 25 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens, which is 425 (four hundred and twenty-five) UAH. 00 kopecks
Collect from PERSON_1 a court fee in the amount of 0.2 of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, which is 536 (five hundred and thirty-six) UAH. 80 kopecks
It is clarified that in the event of failure to pay the fine within the term established by part 1 of Art. 307 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the amount of the fine will be collected in the order of enforcement of the resolution in a double amount.
The resolution may be appealed by the person against whom it was issued, as well as by the victim, to the Kyiv Court of Appeals through the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, within 10 days from the date of the resolution.
The term of execution of the resolution is three months.
Judge: S.I. Smyk