Thus, in the case of Bartha v. Georgia (application no. 10978/06), it was determined that the applicant was not able to participate in proceedings on an equal footing with the opposing party represented by a lawyer, and that he was subsequently not given the opportunity get a fresh look at his case.

As it is apparent in the present case, it case has already been considered by the court of first instance and the applicant does not deny that he was able to take part in the trial of the court of first instance on an equal basis with the opposing party, provide explanations and submit evidence.

It is also apparent that after the trial of the case by the court of first instance, the applicant was subsequently granted the opportunity to re-examine his case in the court of appeal, his appeal was taken for consideration and considered.

At the same time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 269, Part 3 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, evidence before the court of the appellate court that was not filed before the court of first instance is accepted only in exceptional cases, if the party to the case provided evidence that it is impossible to submit them to the court of first instance for reasons that objectively did not depend on him. However, such circumstances are not seen.

Thus, the powers of the appellate court in reviewing a court decision differ from the powers of the court of first instance.

Consequently, the circumstances of the case "Bartaya v. Georgia" (application no. 10978/06) are different from the circumstances of the case, which is being reviewed in cassation, therefore, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bartha v. Georgia (application no. 10978/06) can not be the basis for the annulment of the appealed decision of the court of appellate instance.

Also, the SC recalled that the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 56 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, a legal entity participates in a case through its supervisor or a member of an executive body authorized to act on its behalf in accordance with the law, statute, regulations (self-representation of a legal entity), or through a representative. Consequently, the defendant could take part in the trial personally (self-representation of a legal entity) or through a representative, however, the appeals court did not recognize the appearance of representatives of the parties, and, by virtue of the provisions of Art. 269 ​​of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Court of Appeal rightly acknowledged that the case file provides an opportunity to consider the merits of the complaint.

Therefore there are no grounds to consider that the courts violated the rules of substantive and procedural law.

You can get the full text of the decision of the CC of the SC from March 14, 2019 in the case No. 916/859/18 at the link.