Case No. 520/23543/23 dated 08/12/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual of a penalty by the tax authority for violation of the deadline for settlements under a foreign economic contract for the import of goods, which the plaintiff considers humanitarian aid.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances dismissed the claim, concluding that the documents provided by the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of NBU Resolution No. 18, as they contained discrepancies in the counterparty’s name and did not properly confirm the fact of importing the goods as humanitarian aid. The Supreme Court, in turn, pointed out that the lower courts took a formalistic approach to evaluating the evidence, failing to properly examine all documents provided by the plaintiff in their entirety. The cassation court emphasized that a tax audit report must reflect the essence of the violation in detail, and courts are obliged to play an active role in establishing the circumstances of the case, in particular, by critically analyzing the evidence available in the case file. The Supreme Court stressed that the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the execution of the contract and did not verify whether the tax authority actually had grounds to conclude that documents confirming the crossing of the customs border were missing. Therefore, due to the incompleteness of the establishment of the factual circumstances of the case, the decisions of the lower courts cannot be considered substantiated.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 380/25456/24 dated 08/12/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a police officer of an order on transfer to another position and a demand for reinstatement to the previous position, accompanied by a dispute regarding compliance with the one-month deadline for filing a claim with the court.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiff missed the one-month deadline for filing a claim with the court, as he had actually begun performing his duties in the new position as early as July 2024, but filed the claim only in December.
* The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that he learned about the order only in December 2024 after receiving a response to an attorney’s inquiry, as the plaintiff failed to prove that he had taken active measures to obtain this information earlier.
* The court also did not recognize the reference to “continuous service” as a valid reason for missing the deadline, as attendance records confirmed that the plaintiff had days off.
* Regarding the references to participation in the defense of the state, the court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any proper evidence that would confirm a direct causal link between combat missions and the inability to apply to the court in a timely manner.The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to judicial protection is not absolute and requires a person to engage in good-faith procedural conduct and timely exercise of their rights.
* Unlike other cases cited by the appellant, in this case, the court of first instance provided the plaintiff with a real opportunity to justify the reasons for missing the deadline; however, the plaintiff failed to do so.
* Consequently, the court concluded that the absence of objective obstacles to filing a claim within the one-month period established by law is grounds for leaving the statement of claim without consideration.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the appellate court decision to leave the statement of claim without consideration.
Case No. 160/18327/24 dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the customs authority’s refusal to amend a customs declaration regarding the adjustment of the customs value of a vehicle after the completion of its customs clearance.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a declarant has the right to amend a customs declaration within three years after the completion of customs clearance, and that a refusal by customs solely on the grounds that it would lead to a recalculation of customs payments is unlawful. The Court noted that the customs authority is obliged to consider the application on its merits and may refuse only in the absence of legal grounds for making amendments, rather than due to the mere fact of a change in the tax amount. The lower courts erroneously equated the procedure for amending a declaration with the procedure for the refund of overpaid payments, to which different legal norms apply. The Supreme Court emphasized that the customs authority’s decision did not contain a justification for the absence of grounds for adjustment but was based solely on formal disagreement with the recalculation. Since the issue of making amendments falls within the discretionary powers of the customs authority, the court cannot make the amendments itself but is obligated to compel the customs authority to reconsider the application. Thus, the court ensured a balance between an individual’s right to correct errors in a declaration and the powers of the regulatory authority.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts, recognized the customs authority’s refusal as unlawful, and ordered the customs authority to reconsider the plaintiff’s application for amending the customs declaration.
Case No. 160/23444/24 dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this court decision for you. Here is a brief summary of the essence of the case:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A challenge by a non-governmental organization against actions and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) conclusion regarding the construction of a tailings dump, as well as the issue of compliance with time limits for filing a claim with such demands.2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conclusion is an individual act; therefore, it is subject to the general time limits for filing an application with an administrative court as defined by Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine (six months).
– The Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the contested conclusion as early as 2023, yet filed the relevant claims with the court only in 2025, without providing any evidence of valid reasons for such a delay.
– The Supreme Court rejected the arguments that environmental interest allows for the disregard of procedural time limits, noting that the Aarhus Convention does not override national rules regarding time limits for filing a lawsuit.
– The Court stressed that the right to judicial protection is not absolute and must be exercised within the time limits established by law to ensure legal certainty and the stability of legal relations.
– The Plaintiff’s references to practice in other cases were deemed irrelevant, as they did not concern the issue of missing the time limit for filing a lawsuit under similar conditions.
– The Court also noted that the absence of a motion to reinstate the time limit or the determination that the reasons for the delay are invalid constitutes unconditional grounds for the return of the statement of claim.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, confirming the lawfulness of returning the statement of claim due to the expiration of the time limit for filing a lawsuit.
**Case No. 520/28511/25 dated 08/12/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court of first instance leaving a claim for the cancellation of tax assessment notices without consideration due to the plaintiff’s alleged failure to meet the time limit for filing a lawsuit.
2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle that for a tax assessment notice to be duly served, it must be sent to the taxpayer’s current tax address. In this case, the tax authority sent the documents to an address that was listed in the Unified State Register for the plaintiff as a sole proprietor, although their entrepreneurial activity had been terminated back in 2012. The Court established that at the time the documents were sent, the plaintiff had a different registered residential address and the status of an internally displaced person, which the tax authority failed to take into account. Since the documents were not delivered to the proper address, they cannot be considered served; consequently, the time limit for filing a lawsuit did not commence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the fact of proper delivery of correspondence lies with the controlling authority. Therefore, the conclusion of the appellate court that there were no grounds for leaving the claim without consideration was recognized as lawful and well-founded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s resolution.Case No. 638/15317/25 dated 08/12/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to initiate appellate proceedings due to the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal in a case concerning administrative liability.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that although cases involving administrative offenses have a special ten-day appeal period, the court of first instance mistakenly clarified to the party the right to appeal within 30 days.
* The court highlighted the principle of “legitimate expectations”: if a citizen acted in good faith, relying on the official clarification of the court, they should not bear the negative consequences of the court’s own error.
* The Supreme Court noted that the refusal to initiate proceedings due to missing the deadline for curing deficiencies (submitted with a slight delay) in this context is a manifestation of “excessive formalism.”
* The court pointed out that the appellate instance had the opportunity to extend the procedural time limit for curing deficiencies, as provided for in Article 121 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, instead of automatically closing access to justice.
* Consideration was also given to the principle of proper governance, according to which state bodies cannot punish an individual for their own miscalculations in the organization of the process.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the right to appeal is fundamental; therefore, formal obstacles should not prevail over the essence of the right to judicial protection.
* In conclusion, the court reached the decision that the appellate court violated procedural law by failing to ensure a balance between compliance with deadlines and an individual’s right to a review of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and remanded the case to the appellate court for further proceedings.
Case No. 520/9377/26 dated 08/12/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court of first instance returning a statement of claim due to the allegedly improper execution of an attorney’s warrant, in which, instead of a specific court name, it was stated “in all judicial institutions, courts of any instance and jurisdiction.”
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that following the amendments to the Regulation on the Attorney’s Warrant in 2020, the requirements for its execution became more flexible. The Court noted that the “name of the authority” should now be understood as not only a specific institution but also a group of authorities, in particular “judicial bodies” or “all courts.” Therefore, the wording used by the attorney in this case fully complies with current standards and confirms their authority. The Court rejected the tax authority’s reference to obsolete 2019 Grand Chamber practice, as it was based on a version of the Regulation that is no longer in effect. It was also emphasized that returning a lawsuit due to such formal defirepresentation is a manifestation of “excessive formalism” that restricts a person’s right to access to justice. The Supreme Court confirmed that a consistent approach to this issue has already been established, and it allows for a broad interpretation of the name of the body in the warrant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and left the ruling of the appellate court, by which the case was returned to the court of first instance for consideration on the merits, unchanged.
Case No. 320/1374/23 dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the State Audit Service of Ukraine regarding the audit and inspection of the activities of the communal enterprise “Kyivteploenergo,” as well as the legality of the requirements for eliminating the detected violations, adopted as a result of these control measures.
**2. Arguments of the court**
* The court established that the State Audit Service violated the audit procedure, in particular the stage of mandatory coordination of the draft report with the object of control.
* A key factor was that the controlling authority, by a letter dated May 2, 2022, officially approved an extension of the deadlines for the plaintiff to provide comments on the report, but subsequently, without notifying the enterprise, unilaterally completed the procedure and sent the final report.
* The court emphasized the importance of the principle of “good governance” and the right of a person to be heard, which is enshrined in the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure.”
* The absence of the enterprise head’s signature on the report coordination protocol, while simultaneously lacking an act regarding the refusal to sign, indicates a gross disregard for the algorithm of actions established by Procedure No. 252.
* The Supreme Court noted that although providing comments is a right, not an obligation, if the control body itself initiated the coordination procedure and granted an extension, it has no right to ignore its own decisions and deprive the business entity of the opportunity to express its position.
* The court concluded that such procedural defects are a sufficient basis for recognizing the audit report and the requirements to eliminate violations as unlawful, as they directly affected the objectivity and legality of the decisions taken.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Audit Service of Ukraine and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, confirming the unlawfulness of the controlling authority’s actions and the cancellation of its requirements.
Case No. 240/2673/24 dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a summary of the essence of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of a military unit’s refusal to calculate and pay a one-time financial assistance upon discharge, taking into account preferential length of service, and not just calendar [length of service].years of service.
2. The Court proceeded from a clear distinction between the concepts of “condition for acquiring the right to a payment” and “calculation of the payment amount.” The Supreme Court confirmed that preferential length of service is taken into account only for acquiring the right to receive the allowance (existence of 10 years of total service), whereas exclusively calendar length of service is used for calculating its amount. The Court emphasized that regulatory legal acts, in particular Procedure No. 260 and Resolution No. 393, do not provide for the inclusion of preferential periods in the base for calculating the percentage of monetary support. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the necessity of applying preferential service time when calculating the amount of the payment were rejected as being contrary to current legislation. The Court also stressed that its position is consistent and aligns with previous judicial practice in similar cases. Thus, the actions of the military unit regarding the calculation of the allowance solely based on calendar years of service were recognized as lawful.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged.
Case No. 991/1821/23 dated 08/12/2026
### 1. Subject of the Dispute
The subject of the dispute is a criminal indictment against two officials of a state-owned enterprise for abuse of office (Part 2 of Art. 28, Part 2 of Art. 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), which consisted of creating an artificial scheme for the sale of explosives through controlled intermediary structures that performed no real functions, which led to the state-owned enterprise suffering damages in the form of lost income in the amount of over 43 million UAH.
### 2. Main Arguments of the Court
* **Proof of Intent and Scheme:** The Court established that the accused deliberately created a mechanism whereby end consumers (mining and processing plants) were deprived of the opportunity to purchase products directly from the manufacturer (state-owned enterprise), as the accused ignored requests for direct cooperation or artificially inflated prices for end buyers.
* **Nominal Role of Intermediaries:** The Court emphasized that the engaged intermediaries did not possess the necessary licenses for handling explosive materials, lacked resources (transport, security), and did not perform any economically significant functions, since the actual supply was carried out by the state-owned enterprise itself.
* **Economic Nature of Damages:** The Court qualified the difference between the price at which the state-owned enterprise sold the products to the intermediaries and the price at which the intermediaries resold them to the end consumers as lost profit (damages) of the state-owned enterprise, since the latter had every opportunity to sell the products directly.
* **Systemic Nature and Duration:** The Court rejected the defense’s arguments about the “compelled” nature of such actions, pointing out that the systemic nature of the scheme during 2011–2016, the changing of intermediaries, and the coordi—The coordinated nature of the defendants’ actions evidences a unified criminal intent, rather than situational management decisions.
* **Assessment of Evidence:** The court admitted materials from covert investigative (detective) actions as admissible, noting that the recorded conversations of the defendants directly confirm their awareness of the scheme’s illegality and the role of each individual.
* **Rejection of Defense Arguments:** The court dismissed arguments regarding the “collegial” nature of decision-making, noting that internal approval procedures do not exempt officials from liability for intentional actions aimed at causing harm.
### 3. Court Decision
The court found both defendants guilty of committing the criminal offense stipulated in Part 2 of Article 28 and Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentencing them to imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions and a fine; the court also granted the prosecutor’s civil claim for the joint and several recovery from them of over UAH 36 million in material damages in favor of the state.
***
*Note: The text of the decision does not indicate a departure from previous legal positions of the Supreme Court; therefore, the word “” is not added.*
Case No. 804/481/17 dated 12/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual of transport tax to an individual and procedural violations committed by the appellate court when considering an application for a review of the case based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The Supreme Court established that the appellate court grossly violated the norms of procedural law by considering the case in the absence of the plaintiff, who was not duly notified of the date, time, and place of the court hearing. The appellate court simultaneously issued rulings on the opening of appellate proceedings and on the scheduling of the case for consideration under written proceedings, without providing the plaintiff a real opportunity to examine the materials, submit additional evidence, or express their position regarding the written proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to participate in judicial proceedings and the principle of equality of arms are fundamental components of the right to a fair trial under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Since the notification of the hearing was returned to the court due to the expiration of the retention period, the appellate court had no grounds to consider the plaintiff duly notified. Consequently, depriving a person of the right to exercise their procedural rights is an absolute ground for overturning the decision of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 420/3132/19 dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court [text].the decision. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the decisions of the settlement council regarding the development and approval of detailed area plans for individual dacha construction within the coastal protection strip of the Black Sea.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a decision to initiate the development of urban planning documentation is an act of individual action, which exhausts its effect upon adoption and does not violate the plaintiff’s rights; therefore, there are no grounds for its cancellation. At the same time, the court confirmed that the approval of a detailed area plan, which concerns the rights of residents of adjacent plots, is subject to judicial review. The court established that planning dacha construction within settlements at the time of the decision contradicted state building codes. A key argument was the application of the provisions of the Water and Land Codes, which establish an imperative prohibition on any construction (except for hydraulic and linear structures) within a 100-meter beach zone of the sea. The court clarified that the lower courts mistakenly classified this territory as a “coastal protection strip,” whereas it actually refers to a “beach zone,” where stricter restrictions apply. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to cancel the construction provision but corrected the reasoning part regarding the legal grounds for such a prohibition.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, modifying only their reasoning part in accordance with the legal position of the court of cassation instance.
**Case No. 320/14346/23 dated 08/12/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging by a taxpayer of tax notice-decisions, by which the controlling authority additionally assessed corporate income tax due to the company’s refusal to discount long-term financial debt.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that enterprises maintaining accounting records exclusively under National Accounting Standards (NAS) are not required to apply discounting methodologies provided for by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
– The Supreme Court stressed that national standards do not contain a clear methodology for determining the fair or amortized value of financial liabilities.
– Since the discounting methodology was not approved at the level of national regulations, the tax authority had no legal grounds to independently select a formula from international standards and require its application by the taxpayer.
– The court pointed out that the controlling authority has no right to issue instructions to a taxpayer regarding accounting methodologies that are not provided for by the national standards applicable to them.
– The defendant failed to prove the lawfulness of its additional assessments, as its calculation…conclusions were based on standards that are not mandatory for the plaintiff in this case.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the burden of proving the legality of tax assessments lies exclusively with the tax authority, which was not done in this case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the company’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the court of first instance’s decision, by which the tax assessment notices were recognized as unlawful and cancelled.
Case No. 2-a-4346/11 of 08/12/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the legality of the court’s decision to leave a statement of claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s alleged repeated failure to appear at court hearings.
When rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that, in order to apply such a strict procedural sanction as leaving a claim without consideration, the court must indisputably prove the fact of proper notification of the plaintiff regarding the date, time, and place of the hearings. In this case, the materials did not contain evidence that the plaintiff was properly informed about two of the three hearings for which they did not appear. The court emphasized that assumptions regarding proper notification are impermissible, and the burden of proving this fact lies with the court. Furthermore, the panel of judges drew attention to the plaintiff’s long-standing active procedural conduct, as they had regularly attended court hearings over a long period, which refutes the conclusion regarding their lack of desire to defend their rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts did not properly assess the possibility of hearing the case in the plaintiff’s absence, as required by procedural law. Consequently, the conclusion regarding the plaintiff’s “lack of interest” was deemed unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the actual circumstances of the case. As a result, the violation of procedural law was recognized as material, as it prevented the further consideration of the case on its merits.
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case to the court of first instance for continued proceedings.
Case No. 420/18282/25 of 08/12/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit by the daughter of a deceased serviceman against the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine concerning the recognition as unlawful of the Commission’s decision to return documents for revision and the obligation to pay a one-time monetary allowance (OMA).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the right to receive OMA arises at the exact moment of the serviceman’s death; therefore, the legislation in force specifically on the date of this event is applicable.
– The Supreme Court stressed that the amendments to Article 16-1 of Law No. 2011-XII, which entered into force on 03/29/2024 and expanded the circle of aid recipients (including all children regardless of age), do not have retroactive effect in time.
– SinceSince the plaintiff’s father died before the entry into force of the specified amendments, the plaintiff had to prove her status as a family member or dependent in accordance with the version of the law in effect at the time of his death.
– The Court noted that an administrative court does not have the authority to establish facts of legal significance (for example, the fact of residing as one family), as this falls within the competence of civil courts.
– Consequently, the actions of the Ministry of Defense regarding the return of documents for revision to provide proper evidence of family member status were recognized as lawful.
– The Supreme Court also referred to its established practice, confirming that a legitimate expectation of payment cannot be based on a law that was adopted after the legal fact of death occurred.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense, set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and rendered a new decision refusing to satisfy the claims.
Case No. 240/9141/24 dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings due to the military unit’s failure to meet the deadline for appellate appeal and failure to comply with the requirements of the ruling on leaving the appeal without movement.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that procedural deadlines are mandatory for all participants in the case, and compliance with them is a guarantee of legal certainty. The Court established that the appellant received the ruling on leaving the appeal without movement via the electronic cabinet on March 13, 2026; therefore, the ten-day period for curing the deficiencies expired on March 23. Since the application for reinstatement of the deadline was received by the court only on March 25, that is, after the expiration of the time set by the court, the appellant effectively failed to comply with the requirements of procedural law. The Supreme Court emphasized that lack of funding or other internal organizational difficulties do not constitute a valid reason for reinstating deadlines if the appellant did not utilize the time granted to them for performing procedural actions. Consequently, the appellate court lawfully applied Clause 4 of Part 1 of Article 299 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, refusing to open proceedings. The cassation instance did not find any violations of procedural law that would require the setting aside of the ruling.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the military unit’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 320/35847/24 dated 11/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging by a taxpayer of a tax notice-decision on the imposition of a fine for untimely registration of tax invoices and adjustment calculations.in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that as of May 27, 2022, the moratorium on the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices, introduced for the period of the quarantine, had expired. The Court highlighted that the offense of late registration is a continuing one; therefore, liability arises for the period following the lifting of the moratorium. At the same time, the Court noted that for taxpayers who had the opportunity to fulfill their obligations, a transition period was established for the registration of invoices issued in February-May 2022, lasting until July 15, 2022. The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts erred in canceling the penalty in its entirety without verifying which specific invoices were registered in violation of the deadlines and which were registered within the permitted transition period. The Court stressed that an administrative court is obligated to independently examine the calculations of the tax authority and, if necessary, cancel the penalty only in part, rather than in full. Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not establish the factual circumstances regarding each specific invoice, their decisions were deemed premature and insufficiently substantiated.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial to properly establish the circumstances and verify the accuracy of the calculation of the penalties.
**Case No. 380/19246/24 dated 08/11/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the tax authority’s accrual of penalties for the late payment of agreed VAT liabilities and compliance with procedural deadlines during a desk audit.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the fact of late tax payment by the plaintiff is proven and not disputed by the enterprise itself. Regarding the arguments concerning martial law, the Court emphasized that the taxpayer did not submit an application to the tax authority stating the impossibility of fulfilling its obligations; therefore, automatic exemption from liability does not apply to it. The Court also distinguished between the deadlines for conducting a desk audit of tax returns and the audit of timely tax payments, noting that the latter is conducted within the statute of limitations (1,095 days). Regarding procedural violations (failure to meet the deadlines for the issuance of a tax assessment notice and defects in references to legal norms), the Court applied the principle that formal violations are not an absolute ground for canceling a decision if it is correct in substance. The Supreme Court confirmed that failure to comply with the deadlines for the issuance of a tax assessment notice does not exempt the taxpayer from liability for an actual tax offense. The Court also dismissed the motion to depart from previous judicial practice, as it found no fundamental grounds for doing so.grounds.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 240/18269/25 dated 08/12/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court of first instance’s return of a statement of claim filed by a serviceman regarding the recovery of indexation of monetary support due to an alleged failure to observe the three-month statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the commencement of the three-month period for filing a lawsuit, as provided for in Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, should be associated exclusively with the moment when the person received reliable information regarding the amounts accrued and paid to them upon discharge. The Court noted that an order on the exclusion from the personnel list does not constitute proper evidence of the plaintiff’s awareness of the composition and size of payments, as it does not contain a detailed calculation. An important document in such legal relations is the monetary certificate, which is essentially a “written notice” of payments upon discharge; therefore, the courts were required to establish the fact and date of its delivery to the plaintiff. The Court stated that it departs from the previous position set forth in the Supreme Court rulings dated January 23, 2025, and November 20, 2023, where it was erroneously assumed that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit begins on the date of a serviceman’s discharge. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts failed to examine the circumstances of the plaintiff’s familiarization with the actual amounts of accruals, thereby committing a procedural law violation. As a result, the conclusion regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations was deemed premature, as the courts did not establish the moment when the plaintiff actually learned about the violation of their rights.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the judgment of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for further proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 580/10178/24 dated 08/12/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the accrual and payment of monetary support to a serviceman, taking into account the subsistence minimum, as well as the issue of compliance with the deadlines for filing a lawsuit with such claims.
In this case, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that disputes regarding the payment of monetary support to servicemen after their discharge fall under the provisions of Part 2 of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that the three-month period for filing a lawsuit begins not from the moment the right to payment arises, but from the day the person received reliable information about the amounts accrued and paid to them upon discharge. Such information, as a rule, is provided by a monetary certificate or a certificate of settlement issued upon discharge. The appellate court erroneously limited itself to a formal calculation of the time limit, without clarifying whether the plaintiff had been properly familiarized with the settlement documents ear
