The court noted that "Ukrposhta" systematically violates the rules for the issuance of court sentences, leaving in the recipients' mailboxes a message about the storage of mail.

In this case, the person not being handed in person (left to the mail) to the addressee is returned to the sending court within five days without establishing the reasons for non-assignment provided by the civil procedural law.

This practice contributes to the wide possibilities of abuse of procedural rights, since the addressee can endlessly not appear by the appropriate letter of recommendation to the Ukrposhta office, avoid a personal meeting with its employees, and thus effectively disqualify the court from considering the dispute.

Therefore, according to the SC, the current procedure for the delivery of court summons does not reflect the reasons for their non-assignment.

The court explained that the Postal Law and the Postal Service Rules do not provide for a court message sent by registered letter, a certificate indicating the reason for the return - "at the expiration of the prescribed period of storage".

Such a mark does not provide the court with substantiated procedural grounds for determining the fact of the proper communication of a party in a court case, in particular, it does not determine whether the addressee has refused to receive a judicial notice, or the addressee is absent, or the person addressed to the court summoning is not identified at the place of residence.

Consequently, the Court ruled that in the event of the return of the recommended letter marked "Court Summons", the reasons for non-assignment should be indicated, and not the reasons for the return of such a recommended letter.

It should be noted that the corresponding separate decree was adopted on January 23 in the case № 761/15565/16.

Ukrposhta must inform the Supreme court about the implementation of the instructions contained in this decision by April 23, 2019.