Case No. 369/6587/23
Proceedings No. 3/369/3407/23
P O S T A N O V A
In the name of Ukraine
The judge of the Kyiv-Svyatoshinsky district court of the Kyiv region, Hryshko O.M., having considered the materials received from the Bar Council of the Kyiv region about bringing to administrative responsibility INDIVIDUAL_1, a citizen of Ukraine, working in the branch of the "Ukrgaztehzv`yazok" branch of JSC "Ukrtransgaz" on the position of director (legal address: Kyiv Region, Boyarka, 61 Bilogorodska St.),
according to Part 5 of Art. 212-3 of the Code of Ukraine on administrative offenses, –
On March 23, 2023, in order to obtain information, in order to provide legal assistance, in accordance with the Law "On Advocacy and Advocacy", lawyer V.S. Pikalov. applied to the "Ukrgaztehzvzyazok" branch of JSC "Ukrtransgaz" with a lawyer's request No. 03/23-5 dated 03/23/2023.
Accordingly, according to Part 2 of Art. 24 of the Law "On Advocacy and Advocacy", the heads of enterprises and organizations to which a lawyer's request has been sent are obliged to provide the lawyer with relevant information, 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.
Therefore, the director of the branch "Ukrgaztehzvzyazok" JSC "Ukrtransgaz" PERSON_1 was obliged to provide complete information in response to the lawyer's request of the lawyer V.S. Pikalov, or to refuse the provided information with reasons, in the event that access to such information is limited .
By letter dated 31.03.2023 No. 3301 ВХ-23-257 signed by the director of the branch "Ukrgaztehzv`yazok" JSC "Ukrtransgaz" PERSONAL_1, incomplete information was provided at the request of the lawyer of the lawyer V.S. Pikalov. Yes, no information was provided to questions 3-6 of the lawyer's request No. 03/23-5 dated 03/23/2023.
PERSON_1 did not appear at the court session, the day and time of the court session was notified by sending a court summons to the place of work specified in the administrative offense protocol. He did not receive any requests to postpone the hearing.
In the decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated 08.11.2005 in the case "Smirnov v. Ukraine" it is stated that the party involved in the court proceedings is obliged to take an interest in the proceedings in its case at reasonable intervals, to use its procedural rights in good faith and to strictly fulfill procedural duties.
Taking into account the above, the judge considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of the person who is brought to administrative responsibility, based on the materials available in the case
Yes, the fault of PERSON_1 in committing an administrative offense provided for in Part 5 of Art. 212-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confirmed by: the protocol on administrative offense series KS No. 00240 dated 04/26/2023; written statement of the lawyer Pikalov V.S. to the Bar Council of the Kyiv region on the commission of an administrative offense provided for in Part 5 of Art. 212-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; a copy of the lawyer's request PERSON_2 No. 03/23-5 dated March 23, 2023; a copy of the answer of the director of the branch "Ukrgaztehzvzyazok" JSC "Ukrtransgaz" PERSON_1 to the lawyer's request PERSON_2 ..
Having studied the materials of the case, I believe that the actions of PERSON_1 constitute an administrative offense provided for in Part 5 of Art. 212-3 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
Considering the nature of the offense committed, the identity of the offender, I consider it possible to choose the type of administrative punishment – a fine.
In addition, according to 40-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court fee in proceedings on an administrative offense in the case of a court (judge) ruling on the imposition of an administrative fine shall be paid by the person on whom such a fine is imposed.
Therefore, the court fee in the amount of 0.2 of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, namely UAH 536.80, is subject to collection from PERSON_1
Taking into account the above and guided by Art. 40-1, Art. 212-3 KUpAP, judge
PERSON_1, to be found guilty of committing an administrative offense provided for in Part 5 of Article 212-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to impose an administrative fine in the form of a fine in the amount of 50 (fifty) non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens – 850 (eight hundred and fifty) hryvnias in state income.
Collect from PERSON_1 a court fee in favor of the state in the amount of 536 (five hundred and thirty-six) UAH. 80 kopecks
The ruling can be appealed to the Kyiv Court of Appeals through the Kyiv-Svyatoshinsky District Court of the Kyiv Region within ten days from the date of the ruling.
The term of presentation for execution is three months from the date of the resolution.
Judge Hryshko O.M.