{"id":6769,"date":"2025-03-15T09:26:42","date_gmt":"2025-03-15T07:26:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-912-2027-24-dated-10-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-15T09:26:42","modified_gmt":"2025-03-15T07:26:42","slug":"case-no-912-2027-24-dated-10-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-912-2027-24-dated-10-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 912\/2027\/24 dated 10\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Return of Funds Paid to the State Budget under Canceled Tax Notifications-Decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The disputed legal relations are of a public law nature, as they arose in the sphere of tax collection and relate to the return of tax payments.<\/p>\n<p>2. The court rejected the plaintiff&#8217;s arguments about applying the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, pointing out the difference in the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p>3. The determining criterion for distinguishing jurisdiction is the nature of legal relations, not just the composition of subjects.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, and the court decisions of previous instances unchanged, as the dispute is subject to consideration in administrative, rather than economic proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125732564\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Return of Funds Paid to the State Budget under Canceled Tax Notifications-Decisions. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The disputed legal relations are of a public law nature, as they arose in the sphere of tax collection and relate to the return of tax payments. 2. The court rejected the plaintiff&#8217;s arguments&hellip;<\/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-6769","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\/6769","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=6769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}