{"id":6527,"date":"2025-03-10T09:19:44","date_gmt":"2025-03-10T07:19:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-2941-24-dated-27-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-10T09:19:44","modified_gmt":"2025-03-10T07:19:44","slug":"case-no-520-2941-24-dated-27-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-2941-24-dated-27-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/2941\/24 dated 27\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on accrual of penalties for violation of settlement terms in foreign economic activity.<\/p>\n

2. Key Court Arguments:<\/p>\n

: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and changed the approach to understanding force majeure circumstances.<\/p>\n

– Chamber of Commerce and Industry certificate on force majeure is not an indisputable proof of impossibility of fulfilling obligations
\n– It is necessary to prove a causal relationship between force majeure circumstances and the impossibility of performing a specific obligation
\n– War itself does not automatically exempt from fulfilling obligations
\n– Penalties for currency transactions are accrued on general grounds, despite quarantine<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Reject the claim and leave the tax notification-decision unchanged.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on accrual of penalties for violation of settlement terms in foreign economic activity. 2. Key Court Arguments: : The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and changed the approach to understanding force majeure circumstances. – Chamber of Commerce and Industry certificate on force…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}