The relevant decision was adopted on June 6 when considering the statement of Kateryna Makarivna Moldavian against Ukraine.

Under the circumstances of the case, the applicant's representative was not able to sue. Moreover, in the opinion of the plaintiff, the exception to the rules on the representation of only a licensed lawyer for minor cases was also not possible to use, since the legislation at the time of the appeal did not identify cases that should be considered insignificant.

However, according to the ECtHR, the applicant and his representative should have been aware of the transitional provisions of the Constitution regarding the requirement for representation in the Supreme Court, which is carried out exclusively by lawyers from January 1, 2017. An exception to this rule was made for cases that had already been considered on September 30, 2016, when the Constitution was amended, which did not concern the applicant.

Similarly, the relevant articles of the Commercial Procedural Code valid until December 15, 2017, are relevant in this regard.

Thus, the ECtHR considers the limitation of compulsory representation in courts to be predictable and substantiated.

It should be noted that the court did not consider the arguments regarding the insignificance of the case on the grounds that the relevant cases are not subject to appeal. Therefore, the question of access to the Supreme Court could not, in principle, arise if this case was indeed considered to be insignificant.