The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the institution of time limits in the administrative process contributes to the achievement of legal certainty in public-legal relations, and also stimulates the participants in the administrative process to conscientiously perform their duties, reports the press service of 5AAS.
"During the transition period, a person should be provided with a reasonable period of time to apply to the court to formulate a legal position and take actions to prepare the appropriate lawsuit and submit it to the court. The fact of a change in judicial practice cannot be considered a violation of legal certainty as an element of the principle of the rule of law, in particular with regard to the enforcement of norms on shortening the time limits for applying to the court, in the event that a person is provided with the opportunity to access the court within a reasonable period of time, which is objectively sufficient for the realization of this right.
The Supreme Court in its decision dated November 26, 2020 in case No. 500/2486/19 noted that the change in established judicial practice, which took place in the direction of the interpretation of legal norms regarding the application of shorter periods of appeal to the court, can be considered by the courts as a valid reason when deciding the issue of renewal of periods appeals to the court in tax legal relations that arose and acquired the nature of disputes before the change in such court practice. This approach was expressed primarily in relation to cases which, at the time of consideration of case No. 500/2486/19, were already under consideration in the courts and in which the filing of the claim took place without observing the deadline, which the Supreme Court noted in this resolution.
At the same time, this approach is indeed applicable for new lawsuits filed after the adoption of the resolution dated 26.11.2020, however, the Supreme Court noted that when deciding the issue of renewal of the deadline for filing a lawsuit, the following circumstances are of significant importance: the deadline that elapsed after the change in judicial practice and until the moment of filing a lawsuit; the reasons that hindered the filing of a lawsuit in the shortest possible time after the change in judicial practice; whether there is a reason to believe that the claimant made unreasonable delays.
The CAS of the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the change of approaches regarding the duration of the term of appeal to the court with demands for the cancellation of the decisions of the controlling bodies, which do not concern the calculation of the taxpayer's monetary obligations, took place precisely with the adoption of the Supreme Court's resolution dated 11.10.2019 in case No. 640/20468 /18, and therefore the plaintiff in this case had the opportunity to file this lawsuit as soon as possible after the adoption of this resolution by the Supreme Court in case of disagreement with the decisions of the commission dated June 10, 2019 on registration or refusal to register a tax invoice/calculation of adjustment in the Unified Register of Tax invoices
However, the corresponding lawsuit was filed only on 04/22/2021, that is, more than a year and a half after the change in court practice and objective reasons that prevented him from filing this lawsuit in the shortest possible time after the change in court practice, which took place in the direction of the interpretation of legal norms regarding the application of shorter periods of appeal to the court, the plaintiff did not indicate. Therefore, this term cannot be considered reasonable for preparing an administrative lawsuit to protect one's violated right.
Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Supreme Court dated September 23, 2021 in case No. 640/11650/21 ," the message said.
