ON JUNE 10, A DISCUSSION WAS HELD ON “HOW WILL THE IMPROVEMENT OF WRIT AND SIMPLIFIED COURT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CCP AND THE GCC AFFECT THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CREDITOR AND THE DEBTOR?”. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS OF THE EU PROJECT “PRAVO-JUSTICE”, JUDGES, REPRESENTATIVES OF REGIONAL JUSTICE REFORM COUNCILS (RJRC), BANKS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSED HOW IMPROVING COURT PROCEEDINGS AFFECTS THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CREDITOR AND THE DEBTOR. Opening the event, Oksana Tsymbrivska, Chief National Expert of the EU Project “Pravo-Justice” reminded that with this discussion, the Project continues the work started in May of this year discussion on simplification of civil and commercial proceedings in Ukraine: “This time, we want to shift the focus of the discussion and talk about the need to simplify court proceedings not only in terms of law and court practice, but also in terms of economics. Namely, how it affects the financial sector, business and the country’s economy as a whole.”

Dovydas Vitkauskas, Head of the EU Pravo-Justice Project emphasized the importance of monitoring the application of legislation carried out by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which allows, through a systematic study of the opinions of the legal community, to establish what needs to be changed to make procedural regulation in Ukraine more effective and guarantee access to justice within a reasonable time. “We hope that as a result of the joint work with the Ministry of Justice, a new regulatory framework will be prepared that will make the procedural regulation simpler, clearer, without unnecessary formal rights, but with real rights for the parties, which are needed depending on the context of the case, circumstances and behavior of the parties,” said Dovydas Vitkauskas. Semen Kravtsov, national expert of the EU Project “Pravo-Justice”, presented a draft report on the peculiarities of consideration of “minor cases” in civil and commercial proceedings in the courts of first instance and appellate courts in Ukraine, prepared under the guidance of the Project’s international expert Bert Maan. Ruslan Tarasenko, Head of the Department for Support of Judicial and Enforcement Proceedings at PrivatBank, emphasized the key factors for business in debt collection: the time of debt collection and its cost, which sometimes reaches 30-40 kopecks per hryvnia. “Business would like to simplify this process in terms of cost and time. […] If there is a writ proceeding and a lower court fee, banks will be able to better defend their rights, become profitable, and their services will be beneficial to the population. In addition, it will increase payment discipline among the population,” said Ruslan Tarasenko. Sergiy Boyko, Head of the Legal and Judicial Work with Distressed Assets Division of the Legal Department of the National Bank of Ukraine, noted that the recommendations in the draft report are fully in line with the Financial Sector Development Strategy of Ukraine until 2025: “Among its goals are the establishment of alternative dispute resolution methods, improvement of court procedures and enforcement of court decisions. […] We absolutely share the proposals in the Report and are ready to assist in their implementation.” He also added that due to the pandemic, the implementation of these Strategy measures has been postponed until the end of 2022. Andrii Potapenko, judge-speaker of the Rzhyshchevskyi City Court of Kyiv Region, member of the Council of Judges of Ukraine, also commented on the proposals in the draft Report on the use of court orders in small claims: “I support the need to develop writ proceedings and, perhaps, start with the mandatory transfer of a certain category of small disputes to writ proceedings. And then, if the court finds that there is a dispute, the order is canceled and the case automatically becomes a dispute on the law. That is, there is no need to go to court twice.” For his part, Yuriy Chumak, a judge of the Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court, suggested procedural changes in cassation proceedings, in particular, to reduce the number of cases that should be considered in court, since the cassation instance does not examine evidence: “In fact, in most cases, it boils down to the parties simply repeating what is written in the cassation appeal. Given the number of cases and the workload, this is a lot of time.” In addition, Yuriy Chumak suggested:

  • provide for the possibility of appealing cases up to 500 subsistence minimums in the cassation instance;
  • to eliminate legislative uncertainty regarding repeated cassation appeal after the closure of cassation proceedings;
  • get rid of the institution of self-representation in courts;
  • introduce a standard form of cassation appeal;
  • to continue to improve the development of electronic justice.

Bert Maan, international expert of the EU Law-Justice Project demonstrated the use of court orders in small claims disputes on the example of European countries: “Small disputes do not mean unimportant disputes. When they accumulate, they can have a significant financial impact. Therefore, the existence of a court order instrument that can be initiated by the creditor and challenged by the debtor is an effective mechanism for resolving the existing debt problem.” Answering the question of how to make simplified court proceedings more effective, Andriy Butyrskyi, judge of the Economic Court of Chernivtsi Oblast and representative of the Chernivtsi RPRCmentioned situations when similar cases from the same plaintiff in different courts are considered in simplified and general action proceedings: “Summary proceedings should be unified and clearly defined in which cases and how the case should be heard”. The judge also noted that there is no significant difference between simplified and general proceedings: “To make simplified proceedings more attractive, it is necessary to reduce the court fee, devote less time to the consideration of this case and conduct the consideration without summoning the parties. Then it will be a truly simplified action proceeding, and people will be able to get a decision to protect their rights in the shortest possible time without unnecessary costs.” In turn, Yevhen Riyako, attorney at law, managing partner of RIYAKO&PARTNERS and representative of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Arbitration, suggested increasing the amount for the collection of accounts payable under writ proceedings: “If there is no dispute about the right, it makes no difference whether we collect UAH 200 thousand or a million under the writ. Why not allow to use only the right to cancel the order?” In conclusion, Oksana Tsymbrivska, Chief National Expert of the EU Pravo-Justice Project, said that after finalizing the presented draft report, the Project will distribute it to stakeholders and help develop legislative changes to simplify court proceedings in minor cases. Background:Regional Justice Reform Councils (RJRCs) were established with the support ofthe EU Pravo-Justice Project and operate in Chernivtsi, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Lviv, Odesa oblasts and Donbas. To date, members of the Councils have been actively involved in the preparation of a draft law on mediation, amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, proposals to improve legislation on enforcement proceedings, the introduction of an electronic court, and discussions on the concept of transitional justice. The RECs act as permanent working groups that promote the implementation of reforms in accordance with the bottom-up principle: by bringing region-specific challenges and their potential solutions to the level of central authorities.

Read also