Contact center of the Ukrainian Judiciary 044 207-35-46
The use of electronic evidence in commercial proceedings, the current case law of the Supreme Court, and new challenges related to the digitalization of justice were presented by Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Vitalii Urkevych during a webinar organized as part of cooperation with the European Law Institute. The event was attended by members of the European Law Institute, representatives of the legal community, including members of the Ukrainian Bar Association, as well as students of law schools.
At the beginning of his speech, the judge outlined the general approaches to understanding electronic evidence in commercial proceedings, referring to the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Circulation”. He drew attention to the fact that, according to Article 96 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, electronic evidence is information in electronic (digital) form that contains data about circumstances that are relevant to the case. This includes, in particular, electronic documents (including text documents, graphic images, plans, photographs, video and audio recordings, etc.), websites (pages), text, multimedia and voice messages, metadata, databases, and other data in electronic form stored on various digital media, including portable devices (memory cards, mobile phones, etc.), servers, backup systems, and other places where electronic data is stored (including on the Internet). According to Vitalii Urkevych, electronic evidence is submitted in its original form or as an electronic copy certified by an electronic signature equivalent to a handwritten signature in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Trust Services”. At the same time, the law may provide for a different procedure for certifying an electronic copy of electronic evidence. In addition, the parties to the case have the right to submit electronic evidence in paper copies certified in the manner prescribed by law. A paper copy of electronic evidence is not considered written evidence.
Speaking about the principle of non-discrimination of electronic evidence, the speaker cited the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Circulation”, which stipulate that the legal force of an electronic document cannot be challenged solely because it is in electronic form. The admissibility of an electronic document as evidence cannot be challenged solely on the grounds that it is in electronic form.
Analyzing the case law of the Supreme Court, Vitalii Urkevych drew attention to the court’s approach to evaluating electronic correspondence as evidence. According to him, the Supreme Court proceeds from the position that the electronic form of the information itself cannot serve as grounds for refusing to accept such evidence. This approach is evident in the court’s practice, in particular in the rulings of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in cases No. 914/12505/17, No. 910/1162/19, and No. 923/1379/20.
“This is already our everyday reality. A significant part of business communication takes place precisely through electronic means of communication, so it cannot be claimed that electronic correspondence does not ensure the transfer of documents or information,” he noted.
The speaker separately discussed scanned documents, electronic signatures, and their importance in contractual relations. Thus, sending a scanned document by e-mail does not in itself mean the conclusion of a transaction in electronic form. The relevant approaches of the Supreme Court are reflected, in particular, in cases No. 905/902/20 and No. 914/1003/21. At the same time, the speech also covered the use of correspondence in messengers as evidence in commercial disputes. The Supreme Court recognizes correspondence between the parties in digital services as admissible evidence if it confirms the actual circumstances of the performance of the contract or other legally significant actions of the parties. As examples, the speaker cited cases No. 753/10840/19, No. 442/3516/20, No. 570/1369/17, and No. 905/2319/17.
“The concept of an electronic document and electronic evidence are not identical. An electronic document is only one type of electronic evidence, since any information in digital form that is relevant to the case may constitute evidence,” the judge explained.
Speaking about international standards, the speaker referred to the Guidelines “Electronic Evidence in Civil and Administrative Proceedings”, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on January 30, 2019, which enshrines the principle of non-discrimination of electronic evidence and the presumption of their reliability. According to him, these approaches are already actively applied in the case law of the Supreme Court.
At the end of his speech, the judge addressed the issue of using artificial intelligence technologies in legal practice and court proceedings. As an example, he cited the resolution of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated July 8, 2025, in case No. 925/496/24, in which a party attempted to use responses from generative artificial intelligence systems to interpret the terms of a contract. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the lower courts, emphasizing that such materials can only have an auxiliary character and cannot replace the court’s assessment of evidence.
“Artificial intelligence technologies in court proceedings must be approached with great caution,” the speaker warned, noting that AI technologies can be useful for searching for information, but they are not a source of reliable and scientifically proven information on which the court should rely.
The judge also drew attention to the development of the Supreme Court’s digital tools, which ensure access to judicial practice and contribute to its systematization. In particular, he mentioned the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court, analytical reviews of the Supreme Court’s case law, the Supreme LAB service, as well as the official information resources of the Supreme Court on social networks and messengers.
“Today, access to the legal positions of the Supreme Court has been significantly simplified. Many materials can be found directly on the Supreme Court’s website. This is the result of active digitalization that has been taking place in recent years,” Vitalii Urkevych noted.
For more details, see the presentation: https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/prezent2026/Elektronni_dokazy.pdf.
_03_03.png)