The Supreme Court explained who has the right to initiate the exclusion of information about the head of a party branch from the Unified State Register

The Supreme Court, sitting as the Cassation Administrative Court, considered case No. 280/4591/25 concerning the legality of the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to make changes to the Unified State Register regarding the exclusion of information about a person as coordinator and member of the governing body of a district political party organization. The Court analyzed the relationship between legislation on political parties, state registration, and administrative procedure, and determined who exactly has the right to initiate such changes to the register.

Case Summary

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the administrative court against the Dnipro Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine; the third party was the Political Party "Movement of New Forces of Mikheil Saakashvili."

The claims were to recognize the actions of the justice authority as unlawful regarding the refusal to exclude from state registers the information about the plaintiff as coordinator and member of the council of the Veselivka district political party organization, and to oblige the exclusion of the relevant information.

The plaintiff stated that after the start of the full-scale military aggression of the Russian Federation, the urban-type settlement Vesele in Melitopol district of Zaporizhzhia region was temporarily occupied. As a result, the documents of the district party organization were lost, the party branch effectively ceased its activities and did not maintain contact with its members.

To terminate membership in the political party, the plaintiff sent a resignation statement to the party’s governing bodies by mail, and also resent it by email and again by postal delivery. Despite this, information about him as coordinator and member of the district organization council remained in the Unified State Register.

After applying for state registration of the relevant changes, the Ministry of Justice refused to perform the registration action, referring to the provisions of part five of Article 21 of the Law of Ukraine "On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations."

The defendant opposed the claim, stating that the plaintiff did not confirm the election of a new head of the district political party organization, and therefore the state registrar had no legal grounds to make the corresponding changes to the Unified State Register.

In turn, the plaintiff emphasized that he did not intend to remain a member of the political party or hold any leadership positions and took all possible measures to terminate membership in accordance with the party statute.

The Ministry of Justice also noted that as coordinator of the local organization, the plaintiff performed the functions of the head of the party’s structural unit, so to make changes to the register it was necessary to submit documents provided for by part four of Article 21 of Law No. 755-IV.

Decisions of the Courts of First and Appeal Instances

The Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court denied the claim. The Third Administrative Court of Appeal left this decision unchanged.

The courts reasoned that the plaintiff’s submitted statement on termination of party membership and withdrawal from its governing bodies is not, by itself, a ground under Law No. 755-IV for making changes to the information about the composition of the governing body of a party structural unit that does not have legal entity status. According to the courts, the legislation establishes a separate procedure for state registration of such changes, which was not followed in this case.

Legal Conclusions of the Supreme Court

Reviewing the case in cassation, the Supreme Court noted that although the courts of first and appeal instances correctly denied the claim, their reasoning requires clarification due to incorrect application of substantive law norms. At the same time, the cassation appeal’s arguments do not provide grounds for overturning the decisions.

The Court emphasized that state authorities must act exclusively on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. When checking the legality of decisions by authorities, the administrative court assesses whether they acted within their legal powers, followed the established procedure, and respected the principle of proportionality.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the Constitution of Ukraine, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Law of Ukraine "On Political Parties in Ukraine" guarantee everyone the right to voluntary withdrawal from a political party. The law explicitly provides that membership terminates from the day of submitting the relevant application to the party’s statutory body and does not require any additional decisions. An exception is made only for the head and deputy head of a political party.

At the same time, the Court stressed the need to clearly distinguish two different legal procedures: termination of party membership and state registration of changes in the Unified State Register. Withdrawal from the party occurs by submitting an application to the relevant statutory body and does not require contacting the state registrar. Meanwhile, making changes to the Unified State Register is carried out exclusively according to the rules of Article 21 of the Law of Ukraine "On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations."

The Supreme Court noted that information about ordinary membership in a political party is not entered into the Unified State Register. Therefore, termination of such membership itself does not require any registration action.

At the same time, the law provides a separate procedure for making changes regarding members of the governing bodies of a party’s structural unit. If it concerns a member of the governing body who is not the head, it is sufficient to submit a copy of the resignation application with a mark of its acceptance, and no additional decisions or protocols are required.

A different legal regime applies to the head of a party’s structural unit. Part five of Article 21 of Law No. 755-IV explicitly excludes the head from persons who can use the simplified procedure. Therefore, exclusion of information about the head is possible only in the general procedure, which requires submission of a decision of the authorized party body, protocols, documents confirming their validity, and information about the new head.

The Court established that according to the statute of the Political Party "Movement of New Forces of Mikheil Saakashvili," the coordinator of the local organization is a permanent governing body and exercises operational leadership of the organization. The plaintiff was elected to this position by the founding meeting’s decision, approved by the party council. Thus, in the disputed legal relations, he acted as the head of the party’s structural unit, not just a member of its governing body.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that although the plaintiff’s powers as head ceased from the day of submitting the resignation application according to part six of Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine "On Political Parties in Ukraine," this does not mean automatic entry of the relevant changes into the Unified State Register.

The Court noted that exclusion of information about the previous head simultaneously with entering information about the new head is carried out only after submitting the full package of documents defined by part four of Article 21 of Law No. 755-IV.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court stressed that it is the political party that is obliged to ensure the entry of changes to the information contained in the Unified State Register. The law imposes the obligation to initiate such registration not on the person who terminated membership, but on the political party represented by its head, newly elected head of the structural unit, or another authorized person.

The Court separately noted that the state registrar has no discretionary powers to assess the sufficiency of documents. If the applicant did not submit the documents required by law, the registrar cannot perform the registration action at their own discretion and is obliged to refuse state registration.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that the state registrar is not obliged to independently collect documents on the election of the new head of the party’s structural unit, as the obligation to submit them is directly imposed by law on the applicant for the registration action.

Based on the established circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff was not authorized to independently initiate changes to the Unified State Register regarding the exclusion of information about himself as head of the party’s structural unit. Therefore, the registration authority lawfully refused to perform the relevant registration action.

The Court separately noted that the request to exclude information about membership in the council of the local organization also cannot be satisfied, as it was made within the same registration action. Information about the head and composition of the governing bodies of the party’s structural unit constitute a single block of information in the Unified State Register and are changed exclusively according to the procedure defined by Article 21 of Law No. 755-IV. Since the plaintiff was simultaneously coordinator and council member by position, the general state registration procedure applied to making changes.

The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the courts of first and appeal instances denying the claim but amended their reasoning parts by providing a legal assessment applying the correct interpretation of the Law of Ukraine "On Political Parties in Ukraine," the Law of Ukraine "On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations," and the Law of Ukraine "On Administrative Procedure."

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.