On 16 September 2026, the Second Senate considered the case upon the constitutional complaint of the Limited Liability Company “O.S.P. AGRO” (hereinafter the “Company”) during the public part of the plenary session held in the form of written proceedings.
During the plenary hearing, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Serhiy Riznyk, noted that the complainant requested the Court to review the compliance of paragraphs three and five of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Currency and Currency Transaction” no. 2473-VIII dated 21 June 2018 (hereinafter the “Law”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
Paragraphs three and five of Article 13 of the Law provide:
“3. If the National Bank of Ukraine establishes a deadline for payments on residents transactions on import of goods, their delivery must be made within the terms specified in the contracts, but not later than the deadline for payments defined by the National Bank of Ukraine from the date of advance payment (prepayment).”
“5. Breach of the payment period by residents, defined by this Article, entails charging of penalty for each day of delay in the amount of 0.3 percent of the amount of unreceived funds under the contract (value of undelivered goods) in national currency (in case of payments under a foreign trade agreement (contract) in the national currency) or in foreign currency converted into the national currency at the exchange rate of the National Bank of Ukraine established on the date of the debt. The total amount of the accrued penalty may not exceed the amount of unreceived funds under the contract (the value of undelivered goods).”
It follows from the constitutional complaint and the materials attached thereto that:
The Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Dnipropetrovsk Region (hereinafter the “Directorate”) conducted an unscheduled documentary on-site audit to verify the Company’s compliance with the requirements of Ukrainian currency legislation in the course of performing its obligations under a foreign economic contract. Following the audit, a report was drawn up establishing that the Company had violated the requirements of paragraph three of Article 13 of the Law. On the basis of this report, the Directorate issued a tax assessment notice pursuant to which penalty was imposed on the Company.
The company challenged the said tax assessment notice before the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court.
By Decision dated 12 November 2025, upheld by the judgment of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal dated 23 April 2026, the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court dismissed the Company’s claim.
By its ruling dated 20 May 2026, a panel of judges of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceeding on the ground that the arguments set out by the Company in its cassation appeal were insufficient to warrant the opening of cassation proceedings.
The Company considers that paragraph three and five of Article 13 of the Law do not meet the requirements of legal certainty (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine), “establish a fixed and non-alternative punitive sanction without individualization and without requiring the State to prove guilt (Article 61.2, 62)”, “disproportionately interfere with the right to property (Article 41of the Constitution of Ukraine)”, “unreasonably restrict freedom of entrepreneurial activity (Article 42 of Constitution of Ukraine)”, “operate unequally and disproportionately under martial law, since the State suspended the running of tax and other periods subject to State control (subparagraph 69.9 of the Tax Code of Ukraine), while allowing currency penalties to continue to accrue (Article 8, Part Two of Article 24, Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine),” and “are applied on the basis of a provision whose key element (the maximum settlement period) is established by a subordinate regulatory act rather than by law.”
Having examined the case materials, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session.
The plenary session was attended by an authorized representative acting on behalf of the subject to a constitutional complaint, attorney Oleksandr Rysin.
A video recording of the plenary session is available on the Court's official website under the heading “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Hearings”.
