Telegram as evidence: Supreme Court changes approach to evaluating electronic correspondence

The Supreme Court continues to shape the modern practice of using electronic evidence, recognizing messengers, in particular Telegram, as a full-fledged tool for establishing the circumstances of the case.

Indicative in this context is the decision in case No. 904/354/24, where the subject of the dispute was the collection of more than 10 million UAH under a supply contract. The defendant, denying the claim, referred to correspondence in Telegram, by which he allegedly notified the plaintiff about the readiness of the goods for shipment.

The courts of first and appellate instances refused to take into account such evidence, reasoning that the messenger was not provided for by the contract as an official channel of communication, as well as the possibility of editing or deleting messages.

However, the Supreme Court overturned these decisions, emphasizing the need for a deeper assessment of electronic evidence.

The court emphasized that:

messages in messengers are electronic evidence within the meaning of procedural legislation;

screenshots may be recognized as admissible evidence if their authenticity is not refuted;
the absence of a messenger in the contract is not a basis for automatic rejection of correspondence;
modern business practice allows the use of electronic communication channels as a custom of business turnover.

The Supreme Court paid special attention to the criterion of the reliability of evidence. The court must evaluate them in totality – taking into account the behavior of the parties, the context of communication and other supporting data, in particular the use of relevant contacts in business activities.

At the same time, the mere fact of the technical possibility of deleting messages in a messenger cannot be a basis for recognizing evidence as inadmissible.

This legal position is of significant importance for business, because it actually establishes: electronic communication is not an auxiliary, but a full-fledged evidentiary tool.

Thus, judicial practice is gradually moving away from a formal approach to evaluating digital evidence, moving towards its substantive analysis — taking into account technological realities and standards of the modern business environment.