How Judicial Practice Shapes Standards of Proof in Bankruptcy Proceedings

One of the key elements in bankruptcy proceedings is the interaction between the creditor and the court during the filing and examination of monetary claims against the debtor. The bankruptcy process is not a mere formality. It is a special legal regime under which the court exercises continuous control over the actions of all participants — from the moment a bankruptcy petition is accepted until the proceedings are completed. Such control is designed to prevent abuses and ensure equilibrium between the debtor and creditors.

The Creditor’s Status: From Substantive Right to Procedural Tool

According to the CUBP, a creditor may be a legal or natural person, a controlling authority, or another state institution with confirmed monetary claims. The law distinguishes several categories of creditors — competitive, current, secured, privileged, as well as those whose claims arise after the initiation of proceedings.

The crucial point is that material relations between the debtor and the creditor must be transformed into procedural ones, i.e., confirmed through a formal claim and appropriate evidence. Without this, the creditor cannot acquire the procedural status of a party to the case. This approach has been reaffirmed in the case law of the Supreme Court, particularly in rulings dated 16 July 2020 (Case No. 910/4475/19) and Case No. 911/698/21, which emphasized that only the proper procedural filing of claims ensures the creditor’s actual participation in bankruptcy proceedings.

When Proof Becomes the Key Factor

At the stage of reviewing a creditor’s claim, the commercial court does not resolve the dispute on the merits — it only verifies the existence or absence of the debtor’s monetary obligation. This position is supported by the Supreme Court’s rulings of 20 June 2019 (Case No. 915/535/17), 25 June 2019 (Case No. 922/116/18), 10 February 2020 (Case No. 909/146/19), among others.

In other words, the subject of judicial review is not the nature of the relationship between the parties, but the documentary confirmation of debt. The creditor independently determines which documents to submit — contracts, invoices, acts of performed works, or judicial decisions. However, the burden of proof lies solely on the creditor.

Courts now apply a heightened standard of proof, meaning that a creditor must provide a comprehensive set of documents meeting the criteria of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and credibility (Articles 76–79 of the CUBP).

In cases of doubt or inconsistency, it is the applicant’s responsibility to dispel them with sufficient evidence. This principle is established in rulings of the Supreme Commercial Court dated 7 October 2020 (Case No. 914/2404/19), 28 January 2021 (Case No. 910/4510/20).

Fictitious Claims and the Court’s Role

Another significant challenge is the risk of fictitious creditor claims. To counter this, courts apply the principle of adversarial proceedings combined with detailed verification of the origin, amount, and timing of the creditor’s demands. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that even if the debtor acknowledges the creditor’s claims, the court must still verify their validity (15 October 2019, Case No. 908/2189/17, 24 October 2019, Case No. 910/10542/18, 7 November 2019, Case No. 904/9024/16). Thus, only claims supported by proper documentation may be recognized. The court must examine all materials regardless of whether the debtor disputes the amount. This judicial approach serves as a safeguard against manipulation and bad faith actions in bankruptcy proceedings.

Unified Jurisdiction for All Debtor-Related Disputes

Recent amendments to the Commercial Procedural Code and the CUBP have enshrined the principle of exclusive jurisdiction of the commercial court handling the bankruptcy case. All property-related disputes involving the debtor must be considered within the same proceedings — from tax disputes to employment and property-related claims. This approach is confirmed by the Supreme Commercial Court’s ruling of 4 April 2025 (Case No. 910/429/22 / 910/12899/22) and by several regional court decisions — in Kharkiv (2 June 2025, Case No. 922/2167/23), Chernihiv (9 July 2025, Case No. 927/1377/23), and Zakarpattia (10 July 2025, Case No. 907/665/18).

Conclusions

The procedure for recognizing creditors’ claims in bankruptcy cases remains one of the most complex yet decisive stages in restoring a debtor’s solvency. Its effectiveness depends on three essential factors:

1. Documentary substantiation of claims.
2. The heightened standard of proof.
3. Unity of judicial jurisdiction.

Only the combination of these elements enables courts to ensure fairness in the process, while creditors gain real protection of their rights. The core problem lies not in the absence of legal norms, but in their practical implementation: the quality of a creditor’s application often determines not just the court’s decision, but the overall credibility of the bankruptcy system.