Request by Ukraine’s Supreme Court for advisory opinion on dispute about proportionality of tax penalty

CtEDO 2026-01-15 0,89

introduced to the above resolution. Even assuming that those changes did indeed take place, the applicant company considers that its case should have been heard by a panel composed of more than three judges. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the

CtEDO 2025-12-10 0,88

UAH 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (around 161 euros). The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction when established the facts that had not been established by the

CtEDO 2025-10-13 0,88

(i) in particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions and were their decisions “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable” (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 61 ‐ 64, ECHR 2015; and Ra

CtEDO 2021-03-30 0,88

Published on 19 April 2021 FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65239/14 Artem Rubenovych SAFAROV against Ukraine lodged on 23 September 2014 communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the tax

CtEDO 2022-02-21 0,88

that regard. She also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ decisions in respect of her claim against the bailiff were manifestly arbitrary. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Did the applicant suffer any signif