Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Confirms: Only a One-Month Time Limit Applies to Tax Disputes Following Administrative Appea

In its judgment of July 16, 2025, in case No. 500/2276/24, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the key approach to calculating the time limit for judicial appeals against tax assessment notices following the completion of the administrative appeal procedure.

The Court expressly stated that such legal relationships are governed by the special provision of paragraph 56.19 of Article 56 of the Tax Code of Ukraine (the “TCU”), which establishes a clear one-month period for filing a court claim, calculated from the date of completion of the administrative appeal procedure. By contrast, Part 4 of Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (the “CAPU”), which provides for a three-month period, is of a general nature and does not apply to disputes concerning the assessment of monetary tax liabilities where the taxpayer has used the pre-trial administrative appeal mechanism.

The Grand Chamber further emphasized that there is no legal conflict between the provisions of the TCU and the CAPU. Their relationship is governed by the principle of lex specialis derogat generali, under which a special rule takes unconditional precedence over a general one. Consequently, taxpayers’ arguments regarding the possibility of applying a longer limitation period based on paragraph 56.21 of the TCU have not been accepted by the courts, as the different time limits do not contradict each other but rather regulate different aspects of the same legal relationship.I

n essence, the Grand Chamber confirmed the consistency and continuity of the approach established by the Supreme Court as early as 2020: where a taxpayer has first pursued an administrative appeal against a tax assessment notice, the time limit for filing a court claim is one month and must be strictly observed. The Court did not depart from this established practice, and attempts to justify missing the deadline by referring to an alleged “conflict of laws” or ambiguity in the legal framework are not recognized as valid grounds for reinstatement of the missed term.

From a practical perspective, this position of the Supreme Court requires taxpayers to exercise maximum diligence in complying with procedural deadlines. Once the administrative appeal procedure has been completed, a taxpayer effectively has only one month to decide whether to pursue judicial protection and to prepare and file a statement of claim.

In light of this, taxpayers should assess the prospects of judicial appeal already during the administrative appeal stage and ensure readiness to initiate court proceedings promptly if necessary. Any delay or reliance on a longer limitation period creates a significant risk of losing the opportunity to protect one’s interests through judicial review.