LAWYERS AGAINST SSU – PRIKHODKO&PARTNERS HAVE ANOTHER VICTORY

On the application of the Security Service of Ukraine to renew the missed deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance in case No. 826/18227/14

Law company"Prikhodko and Partners" is a representative of the former deputy head of the Security Service of Ukraine in case No. 826/18227/14 according to the latter's lawsuit against the Security Service of Ukraine on cancellation of the order, reinstatement and obligation to take actions.

On 12/21/2021, the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv made a decision on case No. 826/18227/14.

The Security Council of Ukraine submitted an appeal to the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal against the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv dated December 21, 2021 in case No. 826/18227/14.

06/13/2022 The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal issued a decision to leave the appeal without movement, reasoning as follows.

The defendant's appeal against the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court dated December 21, 2021 was registered by the appellate court on February 15, 2022 and accepted by the postal department on February 11, 2022, which is confirmed by the stamp of the post office on the postal envelope.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 295 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, an appeal against a court decision is filed within thirty days, and against a court decision - within fifteen days from the day of its announcement. If only the introductory and resolutive parts of the court's decision (resolution) or the consideration of the case in the order of written proceedings were announced at the court session, the specified term is calculated from the date of the full court decision.

Therefore, the appeal against the decision of the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv from December 21, 2021 was submitted without the 30-day period stipulated by the CAS of Ukraine.

The Security Service of Ukraine notes that it received a copy of the decision of the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv dated December 21, 2021 on January 14, 2022, which, in its opinion, is confirmed by the registration of incoming correspondence.

However, the court noted that the number and date of registration of the incoming correspondence do not in themselves indicate the date of receipt of the court decision, but only record the fact of registration of the court correspondence upon receipt by the plaintiff.

In connection with the failure of the SSU to provide adequate evidence regarding the date of receipt of a copy of the court decision and a substantiated motion to renew the term of appeal of the decision, the court of first instance, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal offered the Defendant to submit evidence regarding the date of receipt of a copy of the court decision and a substantiated request for renewal of the term of appeal of the decision of the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv from December 21, 2021, indicating valid reasons for its omission and submission of evidence of their validity.

On June 24, 2022, the defendant prepared and submitted to the appeals court an application for renewal of the missed deadline.
However, no evidence was submitted regarding the date of receipt of a copy of the SSU court decision.
The Security Service of Ukraine notes that the date of registration of incoming correspondence is a proper and sufficient proof of the date of receipt of the decision of the court of first instance.

In this situation, the only sufficient proof of the date of receipt by the Defendant of the court decision is the envelope in which the District Administrative Court of Kyiv sent its decision, as it indicates the track number of the letter, which can be used to determine the date of receipt. Other evidence, including the number and date of registration of incoming correspondence, is not proper and sufficient evidence of the date of receipt of the court decision.

Such conclusions were formed by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 11.06.2020 in case No. 183/1128/17.

In addition, the Security Service of Ukraine did not indicate any reasoned circumstances that could become valid reasons for missing the deadline for an appeal.

PRIKHODKO&PARTNERS ACHIEVED ANOTHER VICTORY OVER SSU

• recognized as illegal and annulled the order of the Head of the Security Service of Ukraine No. 10/12-OS dated October 23, 2014 regarding the dismissal of our client from the position of Deputy Head of the Main Directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv and the Kyiv region in accordance with Clause 2 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On the purification of power";
• obliged the Security Service of Ukraine to reinstate our client in the position of deputy head of the main department of the Security Service of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv and the Kyiv region by issuing an order by the Head of the Security Service of Ukraine on reinstatement from October 23, 2014;
• obliged the Security Service of Ukraine to immediately inform the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding the withdrawal of information on the application of the ban to our client, provided for in Part 3 of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Purification of Power" and the exclusion of such information from the Unified State Register of Persons to whom the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Purification of Power" are applied.