Review of the Supreme Court Decision in Case No. 160/12987/24 dated March 28, 2025
The practice of administrative justice in Ukraine is in the process of forming a stable position regarding electronic document flow in the judicial process, particularly concerning the possibility of confirming the representative’s authority by power of attorney, formed through the tools of the ‘Electronic Court’ subsystem. In case No. 160/12987/24, the Supreme Court provided clear guidelines on the interpretation of part seven of Article 59 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, which establishes the procedure for submitting electronic documents confirming the representative’s authority.
The circumstances of the case were quite typical for modern electronic document flow: the plaintiff applied to the court with a claim through a representative, whose authority was confirmed by a power of attorney created and certified in electronic form through ECTS. However, the first and appellate courts, disregarding the current legal regulation, concluded that such a power of attorney was inadmissible, which led to the return of the claim application. The main argument was that such a power of attorney allegedly did not comply with the requirements of civil legislation and did not confirm the will of the person who issued it.
The approach of the lower courts focused on formal, even archaic, criteria regarding powers of attorney: the absence of a paper form, a ‘physical’ signature, traditional requisites such as a list of powers, the surname of the attorney, and so on. This approach contradicts the modern digital transformation of the judicial system, which is actively being implemented through ECTS.
Instead, the Supreme Court applied a modern interpretation of procedural law provisions, indicating that part seven of Article 59 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine directly provides for the possibility of representation based on a power of attorney in electronic form, created and signed by the principal through the relevant ECTS subsystem. Furthermore, the respective electronic powers of attorney are automatically attached to the substantive case applications and, if the full extent of powers is present, do not require additional confirmation.
The court also noted that the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine does not require compliance with the formal provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the content of a power of attorney — procedural law takes precedence in procedural matters. Therefore, the appellate instance unjustifiably referred to Articles 244-245 of the Civil Code of Ukraine as a basis for declaring the power of attorney improper.
Another important thesis of the Supreme Court decision was the clarification that systemic distrust of electronic tools, especially such as powers of attorney formed within ECTS, contradicts the very purpose of electronic justice — simplifying access to justice, ensuring its promptness, transparency, and technological advancement.
Assessing the submitted power of attorney, the Supreme Court pointed out its validity, proper form, and compliance with the Regulation on the functioning of ECTS subsystems. The principal granted the attorney full powers, and there were no limitations in the power of attorney, which directly aligns with the requirements of part 7 of Article 59 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. Therefore, the refusal to accept the claim application was deemed unlawful.
This precedent has a significant impact on further judicial practice, as it effectively establishes the admissibility of using electronic powers of attorney as the only proper evidence of representation in cases where documents are submitted in electronic form. The decision also aims to strengthen the role of ECTS as a legal instrument, which has not only formal but also procedural significance.
Thus, the position of the Supreme Court in this case not only corrected the mistake of lower courts but also took another step towards integrating digital standards into the administrative justice system of Ukraine. The practice of recognizing electronic powers of attorney as legitimate enhances trust in electronic justice and increases the efficiency and legal clarity in the exercise of parties’ rights in the judicial process.
🔗 Read the full text of the decision in the court decisions register