case No. 753/6858/25
proceedings No. 3/753/3124/25
R U L I N G
IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE
“24” April 2025 Judge Bondarenko M.S. of Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv, having considered the materials on bringing to administrative responsibility under part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses PERSON_1 , residing at ADDRESS_1 ,
established:
On April 8, 2025, the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv received a protocol on an administrative offense against PERSON_1 under part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
According to the protocol on an administrative offense dated March 27, 2024, PERSON_1 as the director of LLC “VIKING STROY” unlawfully, in violation of the established deadlines, failed to provide information in response to a lawyer’s request from lawyer Boyko Y.V., who requested information on behalf of the Association of co-owners of the apartment building “Novodarnytske”. The actions of the director of LLC “VIKING STROY” PERSON_1 are considered to constitute elements of an administrative offense under part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, namely, an unlawful refusal to provide information in response to a lawyer’s request, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Legal Practice”.
At the court hearing scheduled for April 24, 2025, PERSON_1 did not appear, although the time and place of the hearing on the administrative offense case were duly notified in advance, before the start of the court hearing, via SMS notification.
Also, the date of the court hearing was displayed on the website of Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv in the section of the list of cases scheduled for consideration.
There were no requests for adjournment of the hearing received by the court.
When drawing up the protocol on an administrative offense, PERSON_1 was informed about the consideration of the case by Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv upon summons, which was personally acknowledged.
Considering the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, PERSON_1 had reasonable intervals of time to inquire about the status of the known court proceedings.
Due to the measures taken by the court to summon the person subject to administrative responsibility to court, the hearing of the case took place on the appointed day and time in the absence of PERSON_1 , whose participation, also in view of the provisions of part 3 of article 268 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, is not considered mandatory by the legislator.
The judge, after reviewing the materials of the administrative offense case, reached the following conclusions.
Part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provides for administrative liability for unlawful refusal to provide information, untimely or incomplete provision of information, provision of information not corresponding to reality, in response to a lawyer’s request, a request of the qualification-disciplinary commission of the bar, its chamber, or a member in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Legal Practice”.
According to the content of article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Legal Practice”, a lawyer’s request is a written appeal of a lawyer to a state authority, local self-government authority, their officials and employees, enterprises, institutions and organizations regardless of ownership and subordination, public associations for the provision of information, copies of documents necessary for a lawyer to provide legal assistance to a client.
A state authority, local self-government authority, their officials and employees, managers of enterprises, institutions, organizations, public associations to whom a lawyer’s request is sent are obliged to provide the relevant information, copies of documents no later than five working days from the date of receipt of the request to the lawyer, except for information with restricted access and copies of documents containing information with restricted access.
Refusal to provide information in response to a lawyer’s request, untimely or incomplete provision of information, provision of information not corresponding to reality entail liability established by law, except in cases of refusal to provide information with restricted access.
Article 251 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provides that evidence in an administrative offense case includes any factual data on the basis of which an authority (official) establishes, in the manner prescribed by law, the presence or absence of an administrative offense, the guilt of the person in its commission, and other circumstances relevant to the correct decision of the case.
This data is established, in particular, by the protocol on an administrative offense, explanations of the person subject to administrative responsibility, victims, witnesses, material evidence, other documents, etc.
To confirm that PERSON_1 committed an administrative offense, the court was provided with: a protocol on an administrative offense dated March 27, 2025, series KS No. 00685, drawn up against PERSON_1 , a statement by PERSON_2 on bringing PERSON_1 to administrative responsibility under part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses; a copy of the lawyer’s request dated 01/06/2025, sent to the address of PERSON_1 ; a copy of the lawyer’s request dated 01/24/2025, sent to the address of PERSON_1 ; a copy of the lawyer’s request dated 02/05/2025, sent to the address of PERSON_1 ; a copy of the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individuals/Entrepreneurs, and Public Formations.
The judge, following the requirements of article 252 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, assessed the evidence according to her internal conviction based on a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of all circumstances of the case in their entirety, while guided by the law and legal consciousness.
Considering that there is sufficient evidence in the case that does not raise doubts as to its reliability and admissibility and confirms that PERSON_1 committed an administrative offense under part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, there are all grounds to bring him to administrative responsibility and impose a penalty on him within the sanction of part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
When imposing an administrative penalty on PERSON_1, taking into account the nature of the committed offense, the person’s guilt, circumstances mitigating and aggravating his liability, I believe that imposing a fine in the amount provided for by this sanction is in accordance with the requirements of articles 23, 33 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and is proportionate to the offense committed.
Imposing such a penalty corresponds to the principle of proportionality between the severity of the committed administrative offense and the measure of state coercion.
Article 40-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provides that in proceedings on an administrative offense case, when a court (judge) issues a ruling on imposing an administrative penalty, a court fee is paid by the person on whom such penalty is imposed. The amount and procedure for paying the court fee are established by law.
According to part 5 of article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”, in case a court issues a ruling on imposing an administrative penalty, the court fee rate is set at 0.2 times the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons. The exhaustive list of persons exempted from paying the court fee is contained in article 5 of the said Law.
The court ruling does not contain documents indicating that PERSON_1 is exempt from paying the court fee, and therefore, the court fee should be collected from him for issuing a ruling on imposing an administrative penalty.
Taking into account the above and guided by part 5 of article 212-3, articles 23, 33, 40-1, 251, 252, 280, 283-285, 294 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, part 5 of article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”, the judge,
resolved:
To recognize PERSON_1 , residing at ADDRESS_1 , guilty of committing an administrative offense under part 5 of article 212-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and impose an administrative penalty on him in the form of a fine in the amount of fifty non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens, which amounts to 850 UAH.
According to part 2 of article 308 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, in case of non-payment of the fine within 15 days from the date of the ruling, in the manner of forced execution of the ruling on collecting the fine for committing an administrative offense, PERSON_1 shall be subject to the collection of double the amount of the fine in the amount of 1,700 UAH.
To collect from PERSON_1 a court fee for issuing a ruling on imposing an administrative penalty in the amount of 0.2 times the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, which amounts to 605.60 UAH.
The ruling may be appealed within ten days from the date of its issuance.
An appeal is filed with the Kyiv Court of Appeal through the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv.
The ruling shall enter into legal force after the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal.
The ruling may be enforced within three months from the day following its entry into legal force.
Judge Marina BONDARENKO