Publication date: 15.04.2025
My name is Vovkanych Andriy, I am a lawyer from Uzhgorod. I work diligently and deeply on administrative cases and cases of appealing resolutions on administrative offenses. I also work with military law within the service (consultations, processing of deferments)
Initial Data: A citizen, disagreeing with a resolution on administrative liability issued by the Patrol Police Department in one of Ukraine’s regions, filed a lawsuit to challenge it in court. However, the claim was filed against a police officer as an individual, rather than the appropriate legal entity, which is the actual party in the case. A lawyer was engaged to ensure proper legal proceedings.
Issue:
Filing a claim against an improper defendant:
The lawsuit was filed against a patrol police officer who is not the appropriate party in the administrative case, since the resolution was issued by a territorial unit of a legal entity — the Department of Patrol Police.
Resolution (with legal assistance):
- Legal analysis:
The lawyer conducted a legal analysis of the case and identified a procedural error in determining the defendant. - Client consultation:
The client was advised of the need to replace the defendant, with the procedure explained in accordance with Article 48 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine. - Motion preparation:
The lawyer prepared a motion to replace the improper defendant with the proper one — the Department of Patrol Police.
Client actions (under legal supervision):
- Providing documents:
The client submitted a copy of the resolution, procedural documents, and other case-related materials to the lawyer. - Approval of defendant replacement:
During the court hearing, the client supported the lawyer's position on replacing the improper defendant.
Lawyer's actions:
- Participation in the court hearing:
The lawyer participated in the hearing and argued the necessity of replacing the defendant in accordance with procedural law. - Communication with the other party:
The defendant's representative did not object to the replacement, which was recorded by the court. - Updating procedural documents:
Relevant procedural documents were updated to reflect the new circumstances (defendant replacement).
Case circumstances that led to the legal proceedings:
- Administrative offense resolution:
In January 2024, a resolution was issued holding an individual administratively liable. - Proper defendant — legal entity:
As the resolution was issued by a structural unit of the Department of Patrol Police, the legal entity should have been the proper defendant, not the individual police officer.
Expected outcome:
- Further substantive review of the case:
After the defendant replacement, the court will proceed with the substantive review of the administrative lawsuit. - Ensuring procedural legality:
Due to the proper identification of the defendant, the client's right to effective judicial protection is preserved.
The importance of legal support and procedural oversight:
Avoiding formal errors: The lawyer helped avoid the risk of the claim being dismissed due to being filed against the wrong party.
Ensuring legal accuracy: Professional legal assistance ensured proper qualification of the defendant and allowed the case to proceed further.
Judicial oversight as a guarantee of justice: This case illustrates the effectiveness of judicial oversight in maintaining procedural standards and protecting citizens’ rights.
This case demonstrates the importance of professional legal support, even in formally simple situations. The lawyer’s intervention promptly identified and corrected the error in determining the proper defendant, which preserved the lawsuit and enabled its substantive consideration. The case serves as an example of effective defense of citizens' rights in interaction with law enforcement authorities and the court system.
