Case No. 761/8873/25
Proceedings No. 3/761/2480/2025
DECISION
IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE
On April 7, 2025, Judge Nataliia Hryhorivna Prytula of Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv, having examined the materials received from the authorized member of the Bar Council of Kyiv region regarding administrative liability under Part 5 of Article 212-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, of the individual:
PERSON_1, employed as Deputy Director of the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency”, located at 1 Bohdana Hrinchenka Street, 6th floor, Kyiv, –
ESTABLISHED:
On March 4, 2025, the court received a protocol on an administrative offense, indicating that on January 2, 2025, in order to provide legal assistance, lawyer R.O. Lisov submitted a legal request No. 02/01-25 dated January 2, 2025 to the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency”. In a letter dated January 8, 2025, No. 58/8-11 signed by the Deputy Director of the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency”, PERSON_1 provided an incomplete response to lawyer R.O. Lisov’s legal request, specifically failing to provide information on questions 1, 4, 5, thereby violating the requirements of Part 2 of Article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Legal Practice” and committing an offense as stipulated in Part 5 of Article 212-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.
During the court hearing, PERSON_1 and their defense explained that there was no element of an administrative offense in PERSON_1’s actions, and therefore the case should be closed. On March 31, 2025, written explanations were submitted to the court by PERSON_1’s defense, requesting the closure of the case of an administrative offense based on paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 247 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, arguing that the response to the legal request dated January 8, 2025 was prepared by the Deputy Head of the Legal Department, Viacheslav Konoval, based on a memorandum from the Head of the Financial and Economic Department, Olena Yahovenko (outgoing 09-01 dated January 3, 2025). According to the memorandum, all information regarding the responses to the legal request was reflected in this memorandum. Therefore, no intent or negligence can be attributed to PERSON_1 in providing an incomplete or false response to the legal request, as PERSON_1 did not realize the unlawful nature of their actions, did not foresee their harmful consequences, and did not intend or allow them to occur. Similarly, there was no careless behavior on the part of PERSON_1, as they did not anticipate the possibility of harmful consequences of their actions and could not even foresee them, as they signed a response prepared by a staff member (in accordance with their official duties) in response to the legal request based on the provided memorandum.
Part 5 of Article 212-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses imposes liability for unlawful refusal to provide information, untimely or incomplete provision of information, provision of inaccurate information in response to a legal 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 Part 2 of Article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and Legal Practice”, a state authority, local self-government authority, their officials and employees, heads of enterprises, institutions, organizations, public associations to whom a legal request is directed are obliged to provide the lawyer with the relevant information, copies of documents no later than five working days from the date of receipt of the request, except for information with restricted access and copies of documents containing restricted information.
From the protocol on the administrative offense and the attached materials, it can be seen that on January 2, 2025, in order to provide legal assistance, lawyer R.O. Lisov submitted a legal request No. 02/01-25 dated January 2, 2025 to the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency”.
In a letter dated January 8, 2025, No. 58/8-11 signed by the Deputy Director of the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency”, PERSON_1 provided a response to lawyer R.O. Lisov’s legal request.
However, analyzing the case materials, it can be concluded that in the aforementioned letter of the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency” No. 58/8-11 dated January 8, 2025, an incomplete response was provided to lawyer R.O. Lisov’s legal request, information on questions 1, 4, 5 was not provided, specifically: the position of the Chief of the Accounting Department (Head Office) was not indicated in response to question 1; after September 5, 2022, the positions introduced into the staff list of the enterprise in accordance with Order No. 111 dated September 5, 2022, the Chief of the Accounting Department was employed; during the period from September 5, 2022, to December 5, 2022, the following positions were vacant at the enterprise: Head of the Rivne Branch, Head of the Kherson Branch, Specialist of the Chernihiv Branch, Deputy Head of the Vinnytsia Branch, Lviv Branch Specialist I category, Lviv Branch Specialist II category, Lviv Branch Specialist, Khmelnytsky Branch Accountant II category, as confirmed by a legal request dated January 13, 2025, No. 13/01-25 and a letter from the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency” signed by PERSON_1, No. 106/8-11 dated January 15, 2025.
PERSON_1 did not dispute that it was their official duty to respond to lawyers’ requests received by the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency”.
According to Article 245 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the objectives of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are: timely, comprehensive, complete and objective clarification of the circumstances of each case, its resolution in strict accordance with the law, ensuring the execution of the ruling, as well as identifying the causes and conditions contributing to the commission of administrative offenses, preventing offenses, educating citizens in compliance with the laws, and strengthening legality.
At the same time, Article 251 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses establishes that evidence in a case of an administrative offense includes any factual data on the basis of which an authority (official) establishes, in the prescribed manner, the presence or absence of an administrative offense, the guilt of the person in committing it, and other circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case. This data is established by the protocol on the administrative offense, explanations of the person being held administratively liable, victims, witnesses, expert opinions, material evidence, statements of technical devices and technical means with photo and video recording functions, including those used by the person being held administratively liable or witnesses, as well as those operating automatically, or photo and video recording devices used for monitoring compliance with rules, norms, and standards related to ensuring road safety, the protocol on the seizure of things and documents, and other documents.
The duty to collect evidence is entrusted to persons authorized to draw up protocols on administrative offenses as defined by Article 255 of this Code.
In accordance with Article 252 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, an authority (official) assesses evidence based on their internal conviction, which is based on a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of all circumstances of the case in their entirety, guided by the law and legal consciousness.
Therefore, during the consideration of the protocol, it was established that an incomplete response was provided to the legal request.
The court cannot take into account PERSON_1’s explanation that the response to the legal request dated January 8, 2025 was prepared by the Deputy Head of the Legal Department, Viacheslav Konoval, based on a memorandum from the Head of the Financial and Economic Department, Olena Yahovenko (outgoing 09-01 dated January 3, 2025); all information regarding the responses to the legal request was reflected in this memorandum; no intent or negligence can be attributed to PERSON_1 in providing an incomplete or false response to the legal request; PERSON_1 did not realize the unlawful nature of their actions, did not foresee their harmful consequences, and did not intend or allow them to occur; PERSON_1 signed a response prepared by a staff member (in accordance with their official duties) in response to the legal request based on the provided memorandum, as this does not negate the responsibility of the authorized person for providing incomplete information in response to the legal request.
Therefore, PERSON_1’s guilt in committing an administrative offense is confirmed by the materials of the case of an administrative offense, namely: the protocol on the administrative offense, legal request No. 02/01-25 dated January 2, 2025, letter from the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency” dated January 8, 2025, No. 58/8-11, legal request No. 13/01-25 dated January 13, 2025, letter from the State Enterprise “Animal Identification and Registration Agency” dated January 15, 2025, No. 106/8-11, explanations of PERSON_1.
Based on the above, the judge concludes that PERSON_1’s actions constitute an element of an administrative offense as stipulated in Part 5 of Article 212-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, and PERSON_1 is subject to administrative liability for the committed offense in the form of a fine payable to the state in the amount of twenty-five non-taxable minimum incomes, which amounts to 425 (four hundred twenty-five) hryvnias 00 kopiykas.
To collect from PERSON_1 in favor of the state a court fee in the amount of 605.60 hryvnias.
The deadline for enforcement of this ruling is three months from the date it gains legal force.
A judge’s ruling in a case of an administrative offense may be appealed by the person held administratively liable, their legal representative, defense counsel, victim, their representative, or prosecutor within ten days from the date of the ruling through the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv to the Kyiv Court of Appeals.
The judge’s ruling in cases of administrative offenses gains legal force after the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal.