Delay in Receiving Decision via Electronic Court Does Not Deprive Right to Appeal — Supreme Court
When a person consents to receive procedural documents at their electronic address in the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System (the "Electronic Court" system), they reasonably expect to receive the full text of the ruling in electronic form after it is signed by the court, and missing the appeal deadline is not a consequence of unjustified inaction if the person filed the complaint without delay after receiving the court decision. This conclusion was made by the Third Judicial Panel of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in case No. 619/7773/25.
Positions of the courts of first and appellate instances
By the investigating judge’s ruling dated 08.01.2026, the lawyer’s complaint against the decision of the head of the inquiry sector of the police department to close the criminal proceedings was denied.
The appellate court dismissed the lawyer’s motion to restore the deadline for appealing this ruling.
In the cassation complaint, the lawyer indicated that the operative part of the investigating judge’s ruling was delivered to his electronic cabinet on 10.01.2026. At the same time, the full text of the ruling was signed with the judge’s electronic signature on 20.01.2026, after which the court decision was published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (USRCD) on 21.01.2016. On 22.01.2026, the lawyer filed an appeal. According to part 1 of article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the inability to familiarize oneself with the full text of the court decision and the court’s reasoning is a valid reason for missing the procedural deadline.
Position of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court
The appellate court’s ruling was canceled and a new hearing was scheduled in the appellate court.
The panel of judges of the Commercial Cassation Court noted that the case materials show that on 08.01.2026 the investigating judge announced the operative part of the ruling issued following the review of the lawyer’s complaint against the decision of the head of the inquiry sector of the police department to close the criminal proceedings.
The appellate court, refusing to restore the missed procedural deadline, proceeded from the fact that the appeal deadline expired on 13.01.2026, that the operative part of the investigating judge’s ruling was delivered to the lawyer’s electronic cabinet on 10.01.2026, and that there were no justified obstacles to filing an appeal within the statutory deadline.
However, as seen from the "Electronic Court" system, the full text of the investigating judge’s ruling dated 08.01.2026 was signed with the judge’s electronic signature on 20.01.2026, and this ruling was published in the USRCD on 21.01.2026, which is also evident from the data published in this register.
According to the case materials on the complaint against the decision of the investigator to close the criminal proceedings, the lawyer applied to the local court with a statement in which he consented to receive documents at his electronic address in the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System. Therefore, having informed the local court of his desire to receive procedural documents, including the decision on the merits of the case, in the "Electronic Court" system, the lawyer reasonably expected to receive the full text of the investigating judge’s ruling dated 08.01.2026 in electronic form, which under the above circumstances could not have occurred earlier than after the ruling was signed by the investigating judge with his personal electronic signature on 20.01.2026, i.e., effectively after the expiration of the appeal deadline.
Considering the above, the lawyer’s arguments that he gained access to the full text of the investigating judge’s ruling dated 08.01.2026 after the deadline for its appeal expired are justified.
In this proceeding, the lawyer was not acquainted with the reasons for the investigating judge’s decision until the day the full text was sent to the defender on 20.01.2026 through the "Electronic Court" system and the court decision was published in the USRCD on 21.01.2026.
At the same time, the lawyer acted without unjustified delays in appealing the investigating judge’s ruling, since after receiving the document in the electronic cabinet on 20.01.2026, he prepared and filed an appeal on 22.01.2026, which corresponds to the statutory deadline for filing an appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling and demonstrates the lawyer’s diligence.
The ruling of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Panel of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 11.06.2026 in case No. 619/7773/25 (proceeding No. 51-1081km26) can be viewed at this link.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
