At the end of 2014, it was published the review of court practice concerning information from the social networks as evidence, it was informed on the website Courts often did not accept as an appropriate and permissible evidences – printouts of website pages from social networks, if the databases weren’t approved additionally by other means of proving (admitted by other part, approved by expertize conclusions). Is the judge approach changed through 2.5 years?

The first instance does not approve the printouts from the sites of social networks

The District Administrative Court of Kyiv, in resolution from 17.03.2016 in the case No. 826/16528/15, stated: "With regard to the article published by the unknown author and the person's page in the social network" FB ", the court does not accept their attention, since these materials are not proof. "».

The Svyatoshinsky District Court of Kyiv in its decision from 06.09.2016 in the case No. 759/19259/15 indicated that "... the plaintiff's representatives provided the printouts from the page to the public. The "Facebook" and "VKontakte" networks, which are created under the name of one of the defendants, are not admissible evidence, as their validity cannot be verified. In the specified social networks. any person can create a page under any name, but the plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the information provided is disseminated by the respondents because they did not create such a page, the information did not apply. "».

The Pechersk District Court of Kyiv indicated that a simple screenshot, in which the webpage was opened in the browser window and the print of its contents, are not valid and admissible evidence in this case (Resolution from 01.04.2016 in case No. 757/13905 / 16, Decision from 24.05.2017 in case number 757/43218/16).

Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv in a resolution from 28.04.2018 in case No. 753/21759/16, stated that "... provided by the plaintiff's representative of a printed page in a social network are not admissible evidence, as their validity cannot be verified. In the specified social networks, any person can create a page under any name, but the plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the information provided is distributed by the defendants "(The Kyiv Court of Appeal, by a decision of 07/26/2017, left the decision in force, but the SSCU recently opened the cassation proceedings).

Sometimes the courts still accept these materials as evidence. The Novomykolayivsky District Court of the Zaporizhzhya Oblast established the fact of personal hostile relations between the parties on the basis of the printouts provided by them in the social network (Decision from 01.03.2017 in case number 322/1141/16).

The Vinnytsia City Court of the Vinnytsia Oblast, as the proper and admissible evidence, accepted and investigated the printouts of a screenshot of the information in the profile on the Facebook network (Decision from 31.05.2017 in the case No. 127/8337/16).

Appellate courts are approving of the printouts

The Kyiv Court of Appeal, in resolution from 22.02.2017 in the case No. 755/11966/16, noted that "The social network of Facebook was created for the free exchange of the opinions of different citizens, it is not a means of mass media" and as evidence of the fact of distribution information was received from the Internet (as a written proof).

Zhytomyr Administrative Court of Appeal, in order to verify the arguments provided by the plaintiffs, investigated the printouts of their personal pages in social networks (Resolution dated 01.03.2017 in the case No. 806/1123/15).

The Court of Appeal of the Odessa region, as evidence, investigated the printouts from the page in social networks "Odnoklasniki" and "Facebook" (Resolution from 05.04.2017 in case number 492/600/16). The same court as evidence that the defendant for a long time did not live in a family, did not accept participation in the upbringing and maintenance of his son, evade the provision of material assistance received printouts of scans copies of social pages "Classmates" (Decision from 11.04.2017 in case number 509/2305/16).

The Kharkiv Economic Court of Appeal, having received photographs from social networks, noted that "... the presence or absence of a particular object is reflected in a photograph that may be provided by the party to the economic court as evidence" (Resolution from 06.04.2017 in the case No. 922/3544/16).

The plaintiff, in order to refute the defendant's arguments about the difficult property situation, provided a printout of his pages in social networks, from which it is believed that the defendant travels a lot, so the court made a decision on the grounds that the circumstances of the defendant were not refuted (the decision of the Kyiv Appeal Court from 17.05.2017 in case number 757/16817/16).

Cassation allows screenshots if they are investigated by an expert

SECU, in the resolution from 13.10.2015 in the case No. 5027/651/2012, the State Audit Office positively evaluated the expert conclusion referring to screenshots, which recorded the visit of the respondent to the mailbox, the use of social networks "" and "" as evidence. SACU, in the decision from 06.06.2016 in the case No.-2a-13438/12/2670 confirmed the acceptance of the pages of social networks "Facebook" and "Twitter" provided by the plaintiff of the printscreen (screenshot of the monitor of the user). «Facebook» та «Twitter».

In the decision from 22.02.2017 in the case No. 761/13156/16, the USCU noted that the appeal did not provide a proper legal assessment of the conclusion of an expert study of telecommunication systems and means for proving information from the social network "Facebook" and, thus, not accepting such information in the quality of evidence, did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case.