The client approached Fidelis Law Firm with the aim of challenging a penalty imposed on them during administrative proceedings. The administrative authority claimed that our client had obstructed the tax control process and failed to comply with its lawful requirements. Our client, however, maintained that during the administrative proceedings, the administrative authority had failed to ensure their statutory rights to provide their position and explanations. As a result, the administrative act had been adopted in violation of the procedural requirements governing administrative proceedings, raising serious concerns as to its lawfulness.

Upon taking on the case, our lawyers thoroughly examined and analyzed the materials of the administrative proceedings, including the administrative offense report, the administrative act, and other documents contained in the case file. By examining the administrative proceedings in light of the applicable legal regulations and established judicial practice, our primary objective was to determine whether the administrative authority had complied with the mandatory procedures prescribed by law, ensured the person’s right to be heard and other procedural rights, and whether the administrative act had been adopted on the basis of a complete and comprehensive assessment of the evidence, and whether such evidence was sufficient to justify the adoption of the administrative act.

As a result of examining the administrative proceedings, our team identified numerous violations by the administrative authority related to its failure to comply with the mandatory requirements prescribed by law for conducting administrative proceedings. In particular, the person had not been given an opportunity to become acquainted with the nature of the alleged violation, submit their objections and explanations, or participate effectively in the administrative proceedings. These violations demonstrated that the administrative authority had failed to ensure proper administration and that the administrative liability imposed was unlawful.

In the statement of claim submitted to the Administrative Court, our lawyers addressed the evidentiary significance of the administrative offense report, emphasizing that such a report, by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient basis for holding a person administratively liable if it was drawn up unilaterally, without the person’s participation and without providing them with an opportunity to exercise their rights prescribed by law. In particular, the person must be given an opportunity to become acquainted with the alleged violation, submit explanations and objections, and challenge the factual information presented against them.

At the same time, the statement of claim emphasized that the administrative authority was required to ensure a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of the factual circumstances of the case by verifying the validity of the information recorded in the report and assessing both the circumstances supporting the person’s liability and those excluding such liability. Therefore, relying solely on a report prepared by the administrative authority itself, without properly verifying the circumstances stated therein and without ensuring the person’s opportunity to present their position, could not be considered sufficient to establish the commission of an administrative offense and impose liability on the person.

During the court hearings, we substantiated the arguments presented in the statement of claim, demonstrating the impact of the identified violations on the lawfulness of the contested administrative act.

The Court found that the administrative authority had failed to comply with the statutory requirements governing the proceedings and had not ensured a complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. At the same time, the Court emphasized the importance of hearing and assessing the person’s explanations and position, finding that, in the circumstances of the case, the report prepared solely by the administrative authority was insufficient to hold the person administratively liable. As a result, the contested administrative act was declared invalid, thereby ensuring judicial protection of the client’s violated rights.

This case demonstrates that the procedural requirements governing administrative proceedings constitute important safeguards for the protection of individuals’ rights and for the adoption of well-founded decisions. Their violation may deprive a person of the opportunity to effectively exercise their right of defense and may affect the lawfulness of an administrative act. Therefore, when assessing the validity of administrative liability, it is essential to examine both the evidence establishing the alleged violation and the procedure through which the person was held liable.