Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 140\/4059\/25:<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the NACP regarding the monitoring of the lifestyle of a person subject to declaration and the legality of the reasoned opinion on the detection of signs of a corruption-related criminal offense drawn up based on the results of such monitoring.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court departed from its previous position (specifically, as set forth in case No. 520\/25012\/21), according to which the NACP opinions cannot be challenged in an administrative court if they have become part of the evidentiary basis in criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that an NACP opinion is an individual act of an authority, as it is adopted within the scope of exercising supervisory functions and directly affects the rights and interests of an individual. The Court underscored that administrative legal proceedings and criminal proceedings have different purposes: an administrative court reviews the legality of the procedure and the justification of the authority’s actions, whereas a criminal court evaluates evidence of guilt. The existence of criminal proceedings does not absorb or negate an individual\u2019s right to judicial oversight of the NACP’s activities. Consequently, the appellate court’s dismissal of the proceedings on the grounds that the dispute was not subject to the jurisdiction of administrative courts was deemed erroneous.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the same appellate court for continuation of the proceedings on the merits.<\/p>\n