The Great Chamber has determined a sufficient evidence to confirm the credentials of the attorney

An order issued in accordance with Law No. 5076-VI is an independent document confirming the authority of an attorney. Therefore, in the presence of a warrant, to provide a legal aid contract, its copy or extract together with the warrant is not required.

Such a conclusion was made by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in its ruling of December 5, 2018, in the case No. 9901/736/18 (proceedings No. 11-989, 18).

Under the circumstances, the deputy head of the Melitopol local prosecutor's office in Zaporizhzhya Oblast, through his representative, the lawyer appealed to the Administrative Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court with a-+n administrative claim to the Qualification-Disciplinary Commission of the prosecutors on the recognition of the illegality and the abolition of the decision of the KDCP in respect of imposing disciplinary imposition on it dismissal from the prosecutor's office.

However, the CAC SC returned the claimant to the complainant because the claim was signed by a person who is not entitled to sign it.

It should be noted that, in accordance with the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine, the powers of a lawyer as a representative are confirmed by a power of attorney or a warrant issued in accordance with the Law of Ukraine dated July 5, 2012 No. 5076-VI "On Advocacy".

By the requirements of Art. 26 of the Law of Ukraine No. 5076-VI, advocacy is carried out on the basis of an agreement on the provision of legal aid.

Documents certifying the powers of a lawyer to provide legal assistance may be: 1) a contract for the provision of legal aid; 2) power of attorney; 3) order; 4) an order of the body (institution) empowered by law to provide free legal aid.

It is apparent from the case file that the complainant's claim was signed by his representative - a lawyer, which is confirmed by the warrant attached to the case file for the provision of legal aid issued on the basis of the contract on the provision of legal aid.

The Great Chamber of the SC drew attention to the fact that in view of the content of Parts 1, 3 of Art. 26 of the Law No. 5076-VI, the order may be issued by a lawyer (law office, lawyer association) only on the basis of an agreement already concluded.

The practice of the European Court of Human Rights suggests that it is necessary to avoid overly formal attitudes to the statutory requirements, since access to justice must be real. Excessive formalism when solving the issue of accepting a statement of claim or complaint is a violation of the right to a fair judicial protection.

Therefore, according to the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the court of first instance reached the erroneous conclusion that the grounds for returning the claim were due to the fact that the documents, which would confirm the will of the plaintiff to grant the powers to attorney, that is, a certified copy or extract from the legal aid agreement were not added to the claim.

The full text of the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is available at the link

Read 295 times