1. **Subject of the dispute:** A challenge by a deputy of the Odesa Regional Council against an NACP (National Agency on Corruption Prevention) certificate regarding the results of a full audit of their 2022 declaration, which recorded inaccurate information.
2. **Key arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that an NACP certificate issued following a full audit of a declaration is an individual act of an authority, as it is issued in the performance of oversight functions and directly affects the rights and interests of an individual.
– The court noted that an administrative court is obligated to verify the legality of such a certificate for compliance with the criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and procedural fairness, as defined by Article 2 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine.
– An important argument was the distinction between jurisdictions: an administrative court assesses the legality of the NACP’s actions, whereas a criminal court or a court hearing administrative offense cases assesses evidence for the purpose of holding an individual liable.
– The court emphasized that the existence of criminal proceedings does not “absorb” an administrative dispute, as these proceedings have different objectives and subjects of inquiry.
– **Legal conclusion:** The Supreme Court officially departed from its previous legal position (in particular, the one set forth in case No. 520/25012/21), according to which an NACP certificate could not be the subject of a separate challenge in an administrative court if criminal proceedings had been initiated based on its results.
– The court concluded that denying access to justice in such cases violates the constitutional right to judicial protection and the principle of the rule of law.
– Consequently, any NACP certificate may be independently challenged in administrative proceedings, regardless of whether criminal or administrative prosecution has been initiated against the declarant.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling to close the proceedings and remanded the case to the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal for continuation of the merits review.
