Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the allocation of court costs, specifically the reimbursement to the plaintiff of expenses for professional legal assistance and the conduct of an expert examination in a tax dispute.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle that the amount of expenses for legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed by the attorney, which was confirmed by a detailed description of the services provided. Regarding the expenses for the expert examination, the court applied the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which expenses for an expert opinion obtained prior to the commencement of proceedings are subject to reimbursement if such opinion was used by the court as evidence. The court noted that it is departing from the previous position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of December 16, 2020, in case No. 824/647/19-a, which limited the possibility of reimbursing “extra-procedural” expert examinations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the current procedural legislation does not contain a prohibition on the reimbursement of such expenses if they are directly related to the consideration of the case. The court also stressed that a refusal to reimburse expenses for an expert examination that has become part of the evidentiary basis contradicts the principles of justice and the rule of law. As a result, the court concluded that the appellate court correctly assessed the scope of the attorney’s work and the lawfulness of recovering the costs of the expert examination.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, which partially granted the plaintiff’s application for the reimbursement of court costs, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority.
