Andriy Fomin, an attorney at BARRISTERS, LLC, outlined the advantages and disadvantages of the simplified proceedings process

On December 15, 2017, Law of Ukraine No. 2147-VIII of October 3, 2017, “On Amendments to the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and Other Legislative Acts” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 2147-VIII). This law, in particular, introduced a new legal institution—simplified proceedings. Overall, the introduction of this institution is a positive step that aligns with the goal of reducing the workload on Ukraine’s judicial system and ensuring “reasonable” timeframes for case consideration as part of judicial reform, the implementation of the principle of procedural efficiency, the economical use of judicial remedies, and aimed at minimizing court costs for parties involved in the case. , and, as a result, improving the quality of judicial proceedings. It is also important to relieve judges, when considering a significant number of cases that do not involve factual or legal complexity, from the need to comply with a number of formal procedures, while simultaneously maintaining such requirements for cases that are becoming increasingly complex (such as corporate disputes, bankruptcy disputes, etc.), as well as cases involving significant disputes between the parties and requiring the establishment of material factual circumstances.

Administrative cases of minor complexity, minor civil and commercial cases, as well as other cases, may be heard under simplified proceedings, subject to the exceptions established by the relevant sectoral legislation.

In addition to the benefits mentioned above, the introduction of simplified proceedings also has the following positive effects:

1) The duration of court proceedings is reduced (60 days from the date proceedings are initiated, and 30 days for certain categories of administrative cases).

2) A case under simplified proceedings goes through fewer stages compared to a case heard under the general procedure (without a preparatory hearing or court debates).

3) The hearing of a case under simplified proceedings generally takes place without summoning the parties, based on the case file. Therefore, if a party wishes to participate in the hearing, it must file a corresponding motion. In ordinary proceedings, the parties are notified of the date of the court hearing.

The drawbacks of adjudicating cases under the simplified procedure include:

1) uncertainty regarding the possibility of hearing a case without holding a court hearing if a party requests a change in the grounds or subject matter of the claim, the joinder of a defendant or a third party, etc., since such actions can be taken in simplified proceedings only prior to the first court hearing. In such a case, a natural question arises: how can these procedural actions be carried out if no hearing is held?

2) the subjectivity of the criteria for classifying a case as minor, the absence of a clear and exhaustive list of cases that may be heard under simplified proceedings, which gives the judge the right, in most cases, to decide independently whether to hear the case under the rules of general or simplified proceedings;

3) the court’s right to deny a party’s motion to have the case heard in its presence, which may be regarded as a violation of the human right to a fair trial, as provided for in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court may refuse to hear a case with a party present if the nature of the disputed legal relationship and the subject matter of the case—which is of minor complexity—do not require notifying the parties for a complete and comprehensive determination of the facts of the case; this approach is subjectively oriented, while failing to take into account the absence in the legislation of clear grounds that would limit the court’s aforementioned right and preclude the possibility of procedural violations in this regard, which may lead to an incorrect determination of the factual circumstances of the case and, as a result, the rendering of an unlawful decision.

It is evident that, given these shortcomings, it is still too early to discuss expanding the list of case categories considered under simplified proceedings. Although the institution of simplified proceedings has become one of the positive innovations of judicial reform, it still requires legislative refinement. For example, it is necessary to provide for the possibility for a party to the case, at their discretion, to participate in the proceedings in any instance in order to establish the actual facts and ensure a well-reasoned judicial decision. Furthermore, based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that there is a need to develop uniform approaches among the courts to eliminate the existing shortcomings of simplified proceedings — judicial precedent must be established to set clear criteria for classifying specific categories of cases as eligible for consideration under simplified proceedings.