Author name: admin

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Courts consistently emphasize that a record of an administrative offence is only a means of documenting an incident and an initial legal assessment by an official, and not a self‑sufficient proof of a person’s guilt. The protocol as a procedural act, not a “verdict” Under the Code of Administrative Offences, the protocol is a document in which an authorized officer describes the circumstances of an alleged misdemeanour, the person’s details, witnesses, place and time, and refers to the relevant legal provision. It is only one item of evidence in the case, not a decision of a public authority or a legal act that in itself creates consequences; therefore it cannot be challenged separately in an administrative court — what may be reviewed is the ruling adopted as a result of the case examination. The Supreme Court and appellate courts expressly state that a protocol, by itself and without additional proper and admissible evidence, cannot be treated as unconditional proof that a person committed an administrative offence. The circumstances set out in it must be verified by other written materials, video‑ and photographic evidence, witness statements and expert opinions, and the court must assess the protocol together with the entire body of evidence. Standards of proof: why one protocol is not enough Article 251 of the Code provides that evidence consists of any factual data obtained in the manner prescribed by law which make it possible to establish the event of an offence and the guilt of a specific person. Current case‑law and overviews of the Supreme Court proceed from the standard of “sufficiency and reliability”: if the fact of the event and the elements of the offence are not proven by admissible evidence, this is treated as the absence of both the event and the elements, and the proceedings must be closed. Therefore a protocol drawn up in breach of form, without a description of essential circumstances, without references to sources of evidentiary information, or containing internal inconsistencies cannot by itself give rise to administrative liability. Courts separately stress that where no evidence (photos, videos, reports, witness statements) is attached to the protocol, or such evidence is doubtful, there are no grounds to consider the person’s guilt proven; in that situation the proceedings must be closed for lack of the event or elements of an offence. Case‑law: when a protocol “fails” in court In one appellate decision frequently cited, the court noted that the protocol and the written explanations attached to it were in fact based solely on one party’s version of events; no witnesses were questioned and there was no video recording. The court held that such a construction did not meet the requirements of Article 251 and that the protocol could not serve as proper proof of guilt. Another example is the overviews of the Bar Council and the Supreme Court concerning protocols issued by territorial recruitment centres: courts clearly indicate that evidence of the violation (extracts from registers, copies of orders, notices, etc.) must be attached to the protocol; otherwise it reflects only the official’s assumption. This logic also applies to “typical” situations: police protocols for traffic violations, minor hooliganism, breaches of trade rules or military record‑keeping. Where, apart from the protocol form itself and the officer’s report or explanations, there are no objective data, courts increasingly side with the person brought to liability. What this means for defence First, a person has the right to demand that the authority which drew up the protocol provide all materials supporting the circumstances described in it: video recordings, inspection reports, witness statements, extracts from registers, inspection documents and so on. If such materials are absent, the complaint to the court should expressly state that the protocol is merely a carrier of the authority’s position rather than proof of the offence, and should request that the case be closed for failure to prove the event and elements of the offence. Second, it is essential to carefully check compliance with procedural requirements: who drew up the protocol, whether they had the proper authority, whether the date, place and description of circumstances are accurate, whether the person’s rights were explained, and whether all data about witnesses and victims were entered. Breaches of these requirements undermine the reliability of the protocol as a source of evidence. Third, it is important to build your own body of evidence: written explanations, documents, photo and video materials, and witness testimony supporting your version of events. Under the applicable standard of proof, the court must assess the entirety of the evidence, not automatically give more weight to a police protocol than to other sources of information. Balancing public interest and individual rights The approach under which a protocol is treated as an initial legal assessment rather than a “ready‑made” proof of guilt reflects the courts’ effort to maintain a balance between the effectiveness of administrative enforcement and the protection of human rights. On the one hand, the state retains an instrument for promptly recording violations; on the other, judicial control prevents any protocol from turning into an automatic fine or other sanction without a genuine examination of the circumstances. In the longer term, this encourages authorities that draw up protocols to document offences more thoroughly, use video and photo recording, collect witness statements and properly compile the case file, knowing that in court they must prove not only that a protocol exists but also that the circumstances described in it are accurate. If you face issues with challenging administrative offence rulings, analysing protocols, building an evidentiary basis or choosing a defence strategy in court, you should seek qualified legal assistance: timely advice will help you assess the evidentiary value of the materials, identify procedural flaws and effectively protect your rights. Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at WINNER Law Firm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nzvofPywF0&t=9s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The time limits for removal from Territorial Recruitment Center (TRC) search status have become one of the most sensitive issues of military registration during the full‑scale war. Formally, such search “has no statute of limitations”, yet the possibility of bringing a person to administrative liability and the actual grounds for cancelling this status are tied to clear procedural time limits and to the active steps of the conscript himself. What “TRC search” means and where it is recorded The status “wanted by the TRC” means that data about a military liable person have been entered into the registers of the Territorial Recruitment Center and the police in order to establish his whereabouts and secure compulsory delivery; this information, in particular, is displayed in the “Reserv+” application and in the databases of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The search is initiated by the TRC on the basis of an administrative offence report under Articles 210 or 210‑1 of the Code of Administrative Offences or materials on failure to appear, and if there is no duly drawn‑up report or proven grounds, it may be found unlawful by a court. Legal rules: limitation periods and the “shelf life” of search status The Code on Administrative Offences allows a fine for most TRC‑related violations to be imposed only within three months from the date of the offence; after that, no penalty for that episode is possible, even if the person still appears as an “offender” in the register. The “wanted” status itself may formally remain for months or years, but once a year has passed without a fine or proven violation, it loses practical meaning and there are no real grounds to maintain the search, so the person can demand its cancellation. Administrative deadlines in “Reserv+” In “Reserv+”, search status may automatically disappear after three months or a year if no fine decision has been issued, which in practice mirrors the administrative time limits in the Code. However, the mark’s disappearance in the app does not guarantee that all other TRC and Interior Ministry registers have been updated, so it is safer to obtain an official decision on removal from search and deletion of records from every database. Real cases of court‑ordered removal from search Recent case‑law confirms that TRC search status can be cancelled in an administrative court if it is not backed by a documented breach of registration rules and proper notification. In one case, the Ivano‑Frankivsk District Administrative Court ordered the TRC to delete a man’s search record from the Unified Register because the centre failed to prove that a summons was duly served or that registration duties were violated; in another, the court held that a returned postal item without a signature or electronic delivery proof does not confirm notification. Courts have also cancelled search status where no report under Articles 210 or 210‑1 of the Code existed, finding any TRC request to the police unlawful in such circumstances; these rulings set an important precedent that if the TRC does not properly draw up key procedural documents, the search status must be revoked regardless of how much time has passed. How long removal from search actually takes In practice, the time needed to remove a person from search depends on the chosen mechanism and how quickly the authorities respond. Police can technically delete a person from the wanted database within about 5–20 days after receiving all documents, and sometimes within a few hours after a court ruling. If the issue is handled through “Reserv+”, the process usually fits within standard administrative time limits but may be delayed by workload or technical failures; court proceedings, by contrast, typically take several months, after which the TRC and police must update their registers. Thus, the law sets only general limits (mainly the three‑month period for imposing a fine), while the real timing of “clearing” the registers depends on the person’s own activity and proper enforcement of decisions by the TRC, police or court. What a person should do to be removed from search Lawyers recommend acting consistently and documenting all steps in an official manner. Check the legal basis for search: whether a report was drawn up, which violation is alleged, and whether proper notification took place (signature on the summons, electronic delivery, registered mail, etc.). Submit a written request to the TRC and the police demanding copies of the file and cancellation of the search due to expiry of limitation periods, lack of evidence of violation, or procedural breaches. If the data are incorrect, request their correction through “Reserv+” or by an attorney’s request, relying on documents that confirm residence, travel abroad, studies, deferment and so on. If the authorities refuse to remove the person from search or ignore the requests, file a claim with an administrative court seeking a declaration that the TRC’s actions are unlawful, an order to delete the data from the registers and to inform the police that there are no grounds for search. The earlier a person starts documenting their position, the easier it will be later to prove in court that the search was unfounded or lost its legal effect due to expiry of time limits. Conclusions: the gap between “formal” and real time limits Formally, the law does not set a separate “duration period” for TRC search status: an entry may remain in the registers for years if no one challenges it. In practice, however, the value of such search status is directly linked to the limitation periods for administrative liability and to the TRC’s ability to prove a violation. Once three months or a year passes without a fine being imposed and without proper evidence in the case file, the search status becomes more of a technical error than an effective enforcement tool and can and should be removed — via “Reserv+”, applications to the TRC and the police, or a court order. An active stance by the conscript and qualified legal support often play a decisive role

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The Cabinet has supplemented the reservation system with another important element: enterprises deemed critically important for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) may now include not only traditional defence plants but also companies that effectively “serve the front” through logistics, equipment repair and procurement.Which criteria were expandedThe government has amended the criteria under which enterprises, institutions and organisations are recognised as critically important for meeting the needs of the AFU, adding a separate category of companies that perform contracts for the commands of specific branches or types of the Armed Forces.This covers enterprises that:· transport military cargo;· carry out repair, maintenance and operation of weapons, military and special equipment, ammunition and their components;· purchase defence‑related goods required to service such equipment.In effect, the state acknowledges that combat readiness depends not only on weapons production but also on the entire chain of supply, maintenance and logistics, without which even the best equipment will not function. Link to reserving conscriptsThe status of a “critically important” enterprise is directly linked to the ability to reserve employees from mobilisation under Procedure No. 76: only such enterprises may retain part of their key personnel at their workplaces.Previously, priority was given mainly to defence‑industry and critical‑infrastructure entities, while logistics, repair and service companies performing defence contracts did not always fit the formal criteria.The expanded list makes it possible to:· secure for these companies the right to reserve qualified conscript employees;· avoid situations where mass mobilisation critically disrupts repair, maintenance and transportation for the army;· manage human resources more flexibly between the front line and the rear. What this means for businessFor businesses working on defence contracts, there is now an opportunity to formalise their real role in supporting the AFU and obtain official status as a critically important enterprise.Practical implications include:· a lawful mechanism to reserve key engineers, mechanics, drivers, logisticians and procurement specialists;· greater predictability of operations, with a lower risk of contract disruption due to staff shortages;· stronger bargaining positions in dealings with customers and banks, as critically important status can be an argument for financing or payment deferrals.At the same time, the mere fact of working with the military does not guarantee automatic inclusion in the list: an enterprise must prove that it performs the specific types of contracts covered by the new criteria and provide supporting agreements, volumes of work and evidence of its significance for defence. Risks and “weak spots”The broader criteria also increase business responsibility:· compliance monitoring of defence contracts may intensify, particularly from the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Economy and supervisory authorities;· there may be claims about unjustified status or abuse of reservation mechanisms (for example, when companies try to “hide” non‑essential staff under critical positions).Therefore, enterprises should in advance:· put their contract records and performance documentation in order;· clearly define the functions of reserved employees in internal documents;· prepare for possible audits of the grounds for their critical‑status designation. Strategic effect for defenceFrom the state’s perspective, these changes are intended to strengthen the “rear architecture” of defence by:· protecting enterprises that provide logistics, repair and servicing of equipment;· preventing breaks in supply and repair chains due to workforce losses;· encouraging businesses to engage more actively in defence projects with clearer rules and reservation opportunities.In wartime, this is a step towards a more systemic understanding of defence capability: critically important are recognised not only those who manufacture weapons but also those who ensure their delivery, maintenance and readiness for use every day. If you have questions or issues related to obtaining critically important status for AFU needs, reserving employees under Procedure No. 76 or preparing documentation for the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Economy, seek professional legal assistance — timely advice will help you formalise the status correctly, minimise audit risks and protect your business interests.Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at WINNER Law Firm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRL208Qz3f4&t=1s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In the court ruling underlying this topic, an important point for drivers was recorded: the police officer’s words alone – “I saw a violation” – are not sufficient to prove a breach of traffic rules and to impose a fine. Visual observation may be a starting ground for stopping a car or drawing up materials, but on its own it does not become proper evidence without additional objective recording. What the law requires about evidence in traffic casesIn administrative offence cases (including traffic offences), the court must rely on real, verifiable evidence rather than assumptions or the inner conviction of an individual official. The law sets requirements for the relevance and admissibility of evidence:the fact of a violation must be confirmed by specific data (photo and video materials, witness testimonies, diagrams, measurements, results of technical control devices, etc.);these data must be obtained and documented in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law (service instructions, reports, reference to the technical device, time and place of recording, continuity of the footage);any doubt as to the reliability of the evidence must be interpreted in favour of the person being held liable. Within this model, a simple statement by the inspector – “I personally saw the violation” – is only his subjective perception. It may be the starting point for further verification but not the answer to whether the driver’s guilt has been proven. Why visual observation alone is not enoughFirst, human perception is limited. An officer may be positioned at a particular viewing angle, at night, in poor visibility, under stress or amid multiple simultaneous events. Perceptual error under such conditions is entirely realistic. If the court is given no objective record (body‑camera video, dashcam footage, automatic enforcement cameras, photos, diagrams, etc.), it has no way to check whether the “picture in the inspector’s head” matches the actual road situation. Second, without a record of the incident the defence is effectively deprived of the right to present counter‑evidence. When there are only the officer’s report and explanations, the driver can oppose them only with words. The process then becomes “one word against another”, which conflicts with the presumption of innocence: in case of doubt, preference must be given not to the prosecution but to the person being charged. Third, the police officer’s ruling itself cannot be treated as evidence of a traffic violation; it is merely the document by which he formalises his conclusions. If those conclusions are not backed by proper evidence, the ruling cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and must be quashed. Practical conclusions drawn by the courtIn such cases, courts usually check whether:there is video from a body‑worn camera, patrol vehicle or fixed camera in the file;the protocol specifies which technical device was used for recording, its model, serial number, and the time and place of filming;there are diagrams of the scene, measurements of distances, road markings and signs;witnesses were questioned and whether their statements are consistent with each other and with the physical evidence. If none of this is present and the file contains only a report, a protocol and wording such as “the inspector personally observed the violation”, the court has every reason to conclude that:the objective element of the offence has not been proven;the driver’s alleged guilt is based solely on assumptions;the ruling must be cancelled and the proceedings closed due to the absence of the event or elements of the offence. This approach accords with the general principles of the rule of law: the state cannot fine a citizen relying solely on the unverified opinion of its official. What this means for drivers: how to defend yourselfCase law holding that visual observation without corroborating materials is not evidence gives drivers several important defence tools: The right to demand that the police show the recorded materials. If the officer refers to a violation, it is logical to ask whether there is video or photos, from which devices, and whether this is reflected in the protocol. The right to challenge the relevance and quality of recordings: whether there is continuity, whether the moment of the offence is visible, as well as the licence plate, road signs, weather conditions, road markings, etc. Video that does not provide a full picture may also be deemed improper evidence. The right to challenge the ruling specifically because of the lack of objective evidence: in a court appeal, it is worth explicitly stressing that the only source of information is the officer’s subjective explanation, which is insufficient as a matter of law. It should also be remembered that courts assess evidence in its entirety. If the driver has their own materials (dashcam video, GPS data, witnesses such as passengers or other road users), their presence can critically change the court’s final view of what actually happened. Balancing road safety and human rightsImportantly, by refusing to treat “bare” visual observation as evidence, the court is not siding with violators. It is simply forcing the police to operate under transparent rules and to use modern recording tools. This encourages:the development of body‑camera systems, patrol car recorders and fixed automatic enforcement cameras;better quality of case documentation and better training for officers;less room for abuse when a “violation” exists only in a report but not in reality. As a result, all bona fide road users benefit: those who truly did not violate the rules and can prove it, and those who mistakenly believe they were right but, when shown the video, see exactly where they went wrong. Here, the right to a fair trial is directly linked to trust in the traffic police and to overall discipline on the roads. If you have any questions or problems related to appealing traffic police rulings, recording traffic violations, or collecting and evaluating evidence in administrative offence cases, seek professional legal assistance — timely advice will help you choose the right strategy to protect your rights. Author – Yuliia Popadyn, attorney in tax and housing law at the law firm “Legal Company ‘WINNER’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8bzVJTBOe8&t=9s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The Supreme Court has sent a clear signal to the legal community: AI‑generated answers are a tool, not a source of reliable, scientifically proven information and not evidence in court proceedings. Essence of case No. 925/496/24In commercial case No. 925/496/24, the city council sought to amend a land lease agreement and recalculate the rent.The defendant, challenging the courts’ conclusions, tried to rely on answers generated by two AI systems – Grok and ChatGPT – as confirmation of the “correct” literal interpretation of one of the contract clauses.The Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and explicitly stated that the motion to treat AI answers as electronic evidence had been lawfully dismissed.The Court emphasized that, in this situation, artificial intelligence was used not to assist justice but to cast doubt on already‑formed judicial findings.Why AI answers are not “reliable information”The Supreme Court stated directly that AI‑generated answers are not recognized as a source of reliable, scientifically proven information.The reason is that AI algorithms generate text based on statistical models and available datasets, but they do not guarantee relevance, accuracy or compliance with scientific standards of proof.Moreover, a system such as ChatGPT bears no responsibility for the content of its answers and does not have the status of a subject who can be examined, cross‑examined or subjected to expert review, as happens with experts or witnesses.Therefore, AI outputs cannot be equated with expert reports, scientific publications or official positions of competent authorities – and these are the types of sources that courts traditionally accept as proper and admissible evidence.The role of the court and limits of technologyThe panel of judges stressed that technologies must be used only to support and strengthen the rule of law, not to replace judicial discretion.Decision‑making in court is the exclusive competence of human judges; it cannot be delegated, reassigned or effectively substituted by algorithms, even if those algorithms appear “smart”.This position is consistent with earlier Supreme Court practice, where reliance on the “position” of ChatGPT was already treated as an abuse of procedural rights when aimed at discrediting existing court decisions.The Court explicitly warns that uncritical reliance on AI may undermine trust in justice by creating the illusion of a “third instance” – an algorithm that is neither controlled nor accountable to anyone.What this means for lawyers and businessesFor lawyers, AI can be a useful working tool – for case‑law search, drafting, and structuring arguments – but not a source of “ready‑made legal conclusions” to be cited in court.Professional responsibility for the legal position lies with the lawyer: using an AI answer does not relieve them of the duty to verify it against legislation, case law and the actual facts of the case.For businesses, the practical takeaway is that references in disputes solely to the “opinion” of ChatGPT or another AI system do not work as evidence and do not replace expert reports, primary documents or official clarifications issued by state authorities.On the contrary, demonstrative use of such answers as an “argument” may be perceived by the court as a sign of a weak position or even as an attempt to delay proceedings and create an unnecessary burden for the court.How to work with AI correctly in lawThe Supreme Court’s current line does not ban the technology itself – it merely sets boundaries: AI is an auxiliary tool, not an autonomous source of legal or scientific truth.Lawyers should use it as an “intellectual search” tool – for ideas, alternative interpretations and draft texts that are then refined on the basis of statutes, official sources and relevant case law.In documents submitted to court, references should be made not to the chatbot itself, but to specific legal provisions, Supreme Court rulings, governmental clarifications, academic articles or expert opinions that the lawyer has independently identified and verified.Thus, AI remains a useful “back‑office” assistant for legal professionals but does not become a quasi‑expert or “virtual judge”, which the Supreme Court clearly does not allow.If you have questions or issues related to the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice, drafting procedural documents or building an evidentiary base in line with the Supreme Court’s current approach, seek professional legal assistance — timely advice will help you choose the right strategy for protecting your rights. Author – Maksym Bahniuk, Head of the Tax and Customs Law Practice at WINNER Law Firm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8bzVJTBOe8&t=9s

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку Ukrainian companies operating in international markets regularly face the problem of statutory deadlines for settlements under foreign trade contracts.Foreign currency control in Ukraine sets strict rules for the deadlines for receiving export proceeds or delivering goods. If these deadlines are breached, a business automatically risks a fine of 0.3% of the contract value for each day of delay.That is why it is critically important for exporters and importers to use the mechanism for extending foreign currency settlement deadlines through the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. What are foreign currency settlement deadlines?Under the Law of Ukraine “On Currency and Currency Operations”, export and import transactions are subject to maximum settlement periods.This means that: an exporter must receive foreign currency proceeds for the goods sold within the prescribed period; an importer, after making payment, must receive the goods within the agreed period.These transactions are monitored by banks within the framework of foreign currency supervision.If the deadlines are violated, the bank informs the tax authorities. What is the penalty for breaching foreign trade deadlines?One of the most critical sanctions for businesses is a 0.3% daily penalty.It is important to note that: the penalty accrues on a daily basis; the total amount may reach 100% of the contract value.For example, if a contract is worth USD 500,000, the penalty may reach USD 500,000.For a business, this creates enormous financial risks. Why do breaches of currency control deadlines occur?In most cases, violations of deadlines do not result from bad faith on the part of the company.The main reasons include: delays in production of goods; problems with international logistics; customs procedures; force majeure events; banking compliance checks; sanctions restrictions; changes to contract terms; war‑related risks. In practice, this means that real international trade processes often do not fit into the deadlines set by the regulator. How to extend foreign currency settlement deadlinesUkrainian legislation provides a protective mechanism – obtaining an opinion from the Ministry of Economy on the extension of statutory settlement deadlines.This document allows a company to:✔ officially extend the performance period of a foreign trade contract;✔ avoid the 0.3% daily penalty;✔ confirm the lawfulness of the transaction to the bank;✔ protect the company during tax audits.Without such an opinion, the bank may close the transaction as one that breaches currency regulations. What documents are needed to extend the deadlines?To obtain the Ministry of Economy’s opinion, a company must prepare a package of documents, including: an application for extension of deadlines; a copy of the foreign trade contract; invoices; documents confirming the reasons for the delay; an explanation of contract performance; confirmations from counterparties.The most challenging part is to properly substantiate the reasons for extending the deadlines. Key risks for businessIn practice, companies face the following issues: incorrect preparation of documents; insufficient justification of the reasons for delay; refusal to issue the Ministry’s opinion; missing the deadline for submitting documents; conflicts with banks.As a result, businesses face fines, blocked transactions or tax claims. Legal support for currency controlFor companies engaged in foreign trade, legal support of currency operations makes it possible to: assess currency control risks; prepare the necessary document package; obtain an opinion on extension of settlement deadlines; maintain effective communication with banks; protect the company during tax inspections. This is especially relevant for businesses operating in: agricultural exports; mechanical engineering; IT services; international trade; import of equipment. ConclusionCurrency control in Ukraine remains one of the most complex aspects of foreign economic activity.Breaching settlement deadlines can lead to significant fines for businesses.At the same time, the law allows deadlines to be extended through the Ministry of Economy, which helps avoid sanctions and protect the company.Therefore, exporters and importers should proactively assess currency risks and ensure legal support for their foreign trade operations. Legal support for businessesWINNER Law Firm provides comprehensive support for foreign economic activity, including: extension of foreign currency settlement deadlines; legal support for foreign trade contracts; currency control and compliance; defence during tax audits; tax and customs structuring of international trade. Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner at Winner Law Firm, PhD in Law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYwWY2n1cG0

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The end of the era of paper archives in Ukraine is no longer a metaphor but a concrete legislative project with new rules for businesses, accountants and lawyers: draft laws No. 14414 and No. 14414-1 are intended to harmonise domestic rules with the EU and open the door to full-scale digital archives instead of rooms packed with shelves of folders.Why nowThe current model of e-document flow in Ukraine still relies on laws from the early 2000s designed for an “electronic copy of paper” rather than automated data processing, while real business processes have long been built on information exchange between systems where paper has become a mere formality. European integration makes change inevitable: without aligning the rules with EU law, in particular the EN 16931 standard for e-invoices, Ukraine will not be able to fully integrate into the digital market, so the new draft laws must create the legal basis for a large-scale digital transformation of the economy, including tax control and financial monitoring.Essence of draft laws No. 14414 and No. 14414-1The core draft law No. 14414 proposes a comprehensive update of the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Management”, enshrining a modern understanding of structured electronic documents. These are documents whose data are organised so they can be automatically processed, stored and transmitted between information systems without a human “retyping” information from the screen.The alternative draft law No. 14414-1 focuses on the mechanics of digitising paper documents and the possibility of destroying the paper original before the end of its retention period provided that a proper electronic copy is created. In effect it proposes to amend Article 13 of the Law on Electronic Documents so that electronic copies obtain a status sufficient to fully abandon parallel paper archives.Structured vs unstructured documentsThe key innovation is the division of e-documents into structured and unstructured ones. Structured documents are “machine-readable” (for example, e-invoices compliant with EN 16931) whose fields are formalised to allow automatic import, VAT reconciliation and reporting. Unstructured documents are familiar scans, pdfs and other human-readable formats that may still have legal force if signed with a qualified e-signature; distinguishing between them will make it possible to set different requirements for storage, integrity checks and use in courts and tax disputes.Rules for digitisation and destruction of paperOne of the most sensitive provisions is the possibility of destroying paper originals of documents before the end of their retention period once a proper electronic copy has been created. For businesses this potentially means the end of the duty to maintain costly warehouses and archives with decades of paper documentation, provided that the prescribed procedures for scanning, verification and integrity control are followed.At the same time the draft laws aim to strictly regulate the approval of digitisation to minimise the risks of falsification and loss of evidentiary value. This may include requirements for scanning equipment, the use of qualified e-signatures or e-seals and maintaining digitisation logs.European standards and tax effectAlignment with EU law, primarily through implementation of the EN 16931 standard for electronic invoices, has not only a technical but also a fiscal dimension. According to the authors, full implementation of structured electronic documents may reduce the VAT gap by 15–20%, which for Ukraine would mean an additional 15–20 billion UAH in annual budget revenues.Thus e-document management is gradually ceasing to be an “internal matter” of accountants or IT departments and is becoming a tool of tax policy and the fight against the shadow economy. For business this is both an opportunity to automate reconciliation of settlements and a sign to expect more targeted tax audits based on analysis of large volumes of structured data.Impact on business: from costs to complianceThe shift to a “post-paper” archive model will allow companies to cut costs for renting and maintaining archive premises, as well as for storage and logistics of paper files, while at the same time increasing the importance of internal e-document policies – from orders on switching to EDM to rules for using qualified e-signatures. Businesses will have to invest in EDM infrastructure (EU‑compatible formats, integrations with accounting and CRM systems) and pay more attention to cybersecurity and uninterrupted access to e-archives, since data loss without paper backups becomes a critical risk.Lawyers, accountants and courtsFor lawyers the new rules will mean revisiting approaches to evidence in disputes where “original documents” used to be required: if the law allows destroying paper originals once electronic copies are created, court practice will have to learn to treat digital documents as full-fledged evidence. Accountants and HR professionals will need to bring record-keeping in line with general EDM rules, including switching to electronic employment contracts, and the growing role of e-archives increases the risks of procedural errors in storage, signing and digitisation that may have direct legal consequences.What businesses should do nowEven though the draft laws are still under consideration, companies should already inventory their document-flow and archiving processes, prepare an internal order on transitioning to EDM, identify priority documents for digitisation, review contracts on e-document exchange and assess the readiness of their IT infrastructure. In parallel they should adopt backup and recovery policies for e-archives and training programmes for staff, since what was yesterday a voluntary “digitalisation for convenience” may tomorrow become a mandatory compliance requirement and a precondition for safe participation in supply chains.If you have questions or issues related to switching to electronic document management, digitising paper archives or setting up internal document retention policies, we can help you work out practical steps tailored to your business. Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at the law firm “Legal Company ‘WINNER’”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZOLxDHkOIA

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку In Diia, the government plans to launch a new feature by the end of March – reserving employees who are formally listed as wanted persons. This looks paradoxical and requires separate analysis in the context of mobilisation, reservation and the legal nature of “wanted status” during wartime. Context: digitalisation of mobilisation and reservationUkraine is gradually moving mobilisation procedures into a digital format: an e‑military ID, e‑draft notices and online reservation of critical employees via company and government e‑cabinets are already in place. A logical next step is to give employers a tool to work with the status of employees who appear as “wanted” in the databases of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Territorial Recruitment Centres (TRCs). A person may be listed as wanted either because they simply failed to appear after receiving a draft notice due to communication problems, or because there are real grounds for criminal proceedings. This creates a legal collision for business: the person actually works, but is formally “wanted”. Digitalisation is meant to close this gap by synchronising the records of conscripts in TRCs, wanted‑person databases of the Interior Ministry/National Police, and the HR/mobilisation processes of businesses and public bodies. Why did the “wanted status” problem arise at all?There are several reasons, many of them technical and organisational. Human factor and paper‑based records.A person may receive a draft notice at an old address and never actually be informed, yet be formally recorded as having failed to appear. As a result, they are added to “wanted” lists even though they are physically present at their workplace. Delayed data updates.A company submits reservation documents and has them approved, but data in some registries are updated faster than in others. For some time there is a gap: in the TRC the employee may already be reserved or in the approval process, while in the wanted database they are still marked as “wanted”. Different understanding of “wanted”.For a company HR or lawyer, being wanted for draft evasion has one meaning, while for the Interior Ministry system it is often a standard technical status sometimes applied in bulk to groups of people who did not show up. As a result, without a transparent digital tool the employer often learns about an employee’s status by chance – at a checkpoint, during a document check or through contact with law enforcement. This creates risks for both the employee and business operations. What the new Diia feature may potentially mean Checking an employee’s status.Through the e‑cabinet, the employer will be able to see whether a particular conscript has a “wanted” status or another problematic record (for example, failure to appear). This should enable early detection of risky situations instead of finding out about them accidentally. Submitting reservation requests despite wanted status.Under certain conditions, the system will allow employers to submit reservation documents for an employee who is formally wanted but in reality works and is critical for the company or public body. The idea is not to block reservation solely because of technical or formal entries. Synchronisation between registries.Once a reservation is approved, the data should be updated automatically in all related registries so that a reserved employee is not “protected” in one system while still listed as “wanted” in another. Why this matters for businesses and employees.Previously, almost any “bad” status in registries could effectively block reservation, even if the person was not actually evading service but became a victim of record‑keeping errors or delays. The new functionality is intended to reflect the real situation: the person is at work, performs critical functions and can legitimately be removed from the category of “those being sought” and assigned to a key sector for the state. Risks and legal pitfalls Risk of legalising draft evasion.If the mechanism is launched without clear safeguards, there may be cases where a real draft dodger “hides” behind reservation arranged by a loyal employer. This raises questions about selection criteria, checks and state control. Different statuses across systems.During the transition period, registries will not update instantly, and an employee may simultaneously have a “reserved” status in the mobilisation system and “wanted” status in Interior Ministry databases, preserving the risk of detention and conflicts with law enforcement. Employer’s liability.If a company knowingly pushes for reservation of a person with obvious signs of evasion or serious legal issues, this may be treated as an abuse of rights or aiding evasion. It is therefore crucial to document good faith: the employee’s presence at work, performance of duties and the employer’s lack of information about actual evasion. Confidentiality and access to wanted‑person data.Giving an employer a “wanted” mark means granting access to sensitive information that previously circulated mainly within law enforcement. Clear access rules, minimal necessary data (a fact without case details) and defined liability for leaks or misuse are required. Practical implications for business For companies, especially in energy, transport, IT, communications, defence industry and other critical sectors, the new tool may become an important element of risk management. In practice, businesses should: update internal mobilisation and military‑record policies and procedures; document the employee’s actual presence at work (timesheets, orders, memos); communicate openly with the employee about the meaning of their status and steps to resolve it; maintain working contacts with TRCs and law enforcement, including a designated contact person for complex cases. What the employee should do For the employee, the new functionality is not an “indulgence”. If they discover they have a “wanted” status but in fact live and work at a known address, it is important not to hide but, together with the employer, initiate regularisation, submit documents on residence, employment and family status to the TRC and other authorities, and seek legal assistance if there is a risk of prosecution for evasion. Reservation in such a situation can serve as a bridge between the person’s actual behaviour (they are not hiding and are working) and their formal registry status, but it does not remove the need to resolve all accumulated legal issues.

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The Verkhovna Rada Committee on Social Policy recommended that Parliament adopt as a basis the government’s draft of the new Labour Code of Ukraine No. 14386, taking another step towards a full reform of labour legislation.What exactly the Committee supported.On 4 February 2026, the VRU Committee on Social Policy and Protection of Veterans’ Rights considered the government’s draft Labour Code of Ukraine and unanimously recommended that it be included in the session agenda and adopted as a basis. The document, submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers and registered in Parliament under No. 14386, is positioned as a key step towards the “de‑Sovietisation” of labour legislation, which is currently based on the 1971 Labour Code.Goals and philosophy of the new Code.The purpose of the draft law is to update labour rules in line with international standards, reduce legal uncertainty and informal employment, and balance the interests of employees and employers. The Code is intended to implement more than 30 EU directives on working time, transparent and predictable working conditions, gender equality, reconciliation of work and family responsibilities, and occupational safety and health. A transition is declared from an overly formalised model to more flexible but transparent rules, in which the rights and obligations of the parties are clearly codified.Key changes for employees.The draft codifies individual and collective labour relations, strengthening protection against unfair dismissal and discrimination and reinforcing the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It is planned to introduce clear criteria distinguishing employment relationships from civil‑law arrangements so that it becomes harder to disguise hired work as “sole‑proprietor contracts”. Special emphasis is placed on transparent dismissal procedures, mandatory written justification, and the possibility of effectively challenging the employer’s decisions.New opportunities and constraints for employers.For businesses, the draft promises less bureaucracy through digitalisation of procedures and greater flexibility in designing employment contracts. The Code systematises and expands the types of employment contracts (fixed‑term, flexible, remote, hybrid, etc.), legalising work formats that already exist in practice but fit poorly into the current Labour Code. At the same time, employers will have to adapt to more formalised rules on minimum pay standards, working time and rest regimes, and documentation of HR decisions, which increases the cost of errors in HR processes.Digitalisation of labour relations.One of the systemic innovations is equating electronic documents with paper ones and enabling employment contracts to be concluded electronically via state registers or authorised platforms. This paves the way for full‑fledged electronic HR administration, from e‑employment contracts to electronic recording of working time, leave, and disciplinary sanctions. For companies, this means both potential savings on paper document flow and higher requirements for cybersecurity and protection of employees’ personal data.Minimum wage and remuneration.The Committee and the government place special emphasis on reforming the approach to setting the minimum wage, including hourly and monthly measures and a transparent calculation formula aligned with international standards. This should reduce political arbitrariness in revising the “minimum” and make this indicator more predictable for business planning. At the same time, the rules for calculating allowances, supplements, and bonuses are unified, which should reduce the scope for manipulation and labour disputes over “grey” payments.Impact on flexible forms of employment.The new Code seeks to provide a legal framework for remote, home‑based, flexible, and project‑based work, which has expanded massively during the war and the digitalisation of the economy. It envisages detailed regulation of conditions for freelance‑type models, secondary employment, part‑time work, and shift schedules, with clear guarantees regarding rest time and the right to “disconnect”. For the IT sector, creative industries, and service businesses, this may mean legalisation of practices that have so far hovered between employment and civil‑law contracts.What this means for the labour market overall.If the draft is adopted, it will not enter into force immediately but only after a transitional period linked to the end of martial law, giving businesses time to adapt. In the medium term, the Code may reduce informality, increase employee protection, and at the same time lower regulatory uncertainty for employers, which is an important signal for investors and EU partners. However, many practical challenges are expected at the implementation stage, from updating HR policies and contract templates to training HR departments and developing case law under the new rules.If you have questions or issues related to applying the draft new Labour Code in your company, analysing labour‑dispute risks, or adapting HR documents to the upcoming changes, you can request an individual consultation — we will help you understand the provisions of the draft law and prepare for its implementation. Author – Svitlana Krutorohova, attorney at the law firm “Legal Company ‘WINNER’”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZOLxDHkOIA

Потрібна допомога адвоката? Залишай заявку The commission that a marketplace withholds from a seller’s revenue is turning from a mere “technical detail” into a real tax risk for single‑tax entrepreneurs, as the tax authorities now look at the actual movement of money rather than the contract title. For sole proprietors selling via foreign platforms such as Etsy, the model where the marketplace first receives the full payment and then automatically deducts its fee from the seller’s balance may be treated as a non‑cash form of settlement and a violation of the simplified tax regime. How the marketplace sales model worksTypically, a sole proprietor signs a commission agreement with a Ukrainian intermediary company: the goods are sold through the LLC’s account on the marketplace, the buyer pays the platform, it withholds its fees and only the remainder is transferred to the intermediary and then to the entrepreneur. Formally, the contract may state that the sole proprietor receives the “full amount of proceeds”, but in practice the funds arrive already net of the marketplace commission. This is exactly what worries the tax authorities: for a single‑tax payer, income is the full amount paid by the customer, so withholding a commission from revenue may be viewed as a non‑cash form of settlement, which is prohibited for simplified‑tax payers. Tax authority arguments and court practiceThe tax service relies on the Tax Code rules: for third‑group sole proprietors only cash receipts to the bank account or cash desk are allowed, with no set‑offs, barter or deduction of remuneration from revenue. Therefore, when the marketplace is the first to receive the money and the seller sees only the “net amount” after fees, the authorities consider that part of the income was received in a non‑cash form, namely as services of the platform paid on the seller’s behalf. Consultants refer to Supreme Court cases on classic commission contracts, where only the agent’s commission is recognised as its income, but the tax service stresses that for the single‑tax regime the decisive factor is the actual settlement mechanism, and automatic deduction of commissions from revenue under a marketplace offer does not comply with the simplified system. Why the simplified regime is “at risk”If the tax authorities conclude that a single‑tax sole proprietor has been receiving income in a prohibited form, they revoke the right to the simplified system from the beginning of the quarter in which the breach occurred, and then issue a package of assessments: tax under the general regime, 18% personal income tax plus 1.5% military levy, penalties, interest and a possible VAT review on transactions with non‑residents. For businesses that have for years reported only “net” income from marketplaces, such a retroactive shift to the general regime can make operations effectively unprofitable. In addition, if the sole proprietor is a VAT payer and receives electronic services from a foreign platform (commissions, advertising), they must self‑assess and pay VAT on the value of those services; if they do not, the tax authorities will assess VAT and penalties regardless of their single‑tax status. Does this mean the end of marketplace sales for single‑tax payersDespite the tough wording of the guidance, selling through marketplaces is not banned as such. The problem lies in the configuration of cash flows: when the marketplace or intermediary first receives the full amount, withholds its commissions and only then transfers the balance to the sole proprietor, the tax authorities can argue that part of the single‑tax payer’s income never reached their account in monetary form. To mitigate the risks, lawyers recommend: reflecting in contracts and source documents the full amount paid by the customer and separately the cost of marketplace services, which the sole proprietor pays in money (even if this is effectively a set‑off); checking whether it might be more efficient to move to the general regime where marketplace commissions are high and margins are low; and, where turnover through foreign platforms is significant, structuring the business through a legal entity on the general regime and keeping the sole proprietor for separate domestic projects. At the same time, general rules for single‑tax sole proprietors are tightening: full payment of social contributions has been restored, the military levy now applies to all groups, and oversight of “grey” cash flows and foreign‑trade operations is being strengthened. Against this backdrop, marketplace sales with automatic commission withholding are viewed not as isolated cases but as part of a broader problem of non‑transparent financial flows. What sole proprietors and small businesses should doThose already selling via foreign marketplaces should start with an audit of contracts and actual payment flows: who is party to the offer, to whose account customer payments actually arrive and what amount is reported as income. Next comes modelling tax scenarios: whether the business still fits within single‑tax limits when full revenue is counted, and how painful a switch to the general regime would be. If the commission‑withholding mechanism cannot be changed, one must choose between higher tax costs (general regime / company) and finding platforms with clearer settlement mechanics that do not conflict with the simplified system. Most importantly, do not rely solely on generic guidance: local tax offices may interpret similar cases differently, and the cost of an error today can be measured not in thousands but in millions of hryvnias. If you have any questions or issues related to the taxation of marketplace sales, assessing the risk of losing single‑tax status or choosing the optimal structure (sole proprietor or company), seek professional advice to analyse your situation and minimise potential consequences. Author – Yuliia Popadyn, attorney in tax and housing law at the law firm “Legal Company ‘WINNER’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7J13eUo6U&t=4s