The Supreme Court Allowed Challenging a 5-Year-Old Social Security Contribution Debt: Returning the Letter from the Post Does Not Deprive the Right to Sue

The right of access to the court is the foundation of a democratic state, yet even this right is not absolute and can be limited by deadlines for filing claims. As practice shows, disputes regarding the payment of the single social contribution often involve the question of when exactly a person became aware of the debt — at the moment the controlling authority issued the demand or only when the enforcement service blocked the accounts.

The Supreme Court ruling dated May 28, 2026, in case No. 420/11772/25 became a model for limiting the use of "procedural filters." The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts, identifying excessive formalism in the approach to calculating the moment of a person's awareness.

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding the cancellation of tax claims for the payment of the social security contribution debt dated February 2019 and February 2021, totaling over 56 thousand hryvnias. She also requested to oblige the State Tax Service to correct the data in the integrated taxpayer card.

The claim was filed only in April 2025, six years after the issuance of the first contested act. The plaintiff claimed that she learned about these demands only at the beginning of 2025 through the "Diia" app after her account was blocked.

The Odesa District Administrative Court and the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal left the claim without consideration, applying Article 123 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine due to missing the procedural deadline for filing a claim without valid reasons.

The courts reasoned that the plaintiff was properly notified of the relevant demands since court correspondence was sent to her official address and was returned with postal service marks "addressee absent" and "after the storage period expired." The courts interpreted these circumstances as proper delivery within the meaning of procedural law.

Separately, the courts noted that due to the prolonged enforcement proceedings carried out since 2022, the plaintiff objectively should have known about the existence and nature of the debt. Additionally, the provisions of Article 110 of the Labor Code of Ukraine regarding the employer's obligation to inform the employee about deductions from wages were taken into account, which, according to the courts, creates an opportunity for timely awareness of such deductions.

The courts also considered the fact of voluntary debt repayment in December 2023, which was regarded as confirmation of the plaintiff's actual awareness of the nature and grounds of the collection.

Together, these circumstances were recognized as sufficient to conclude the absence of valid reasons for missing the deadline to file a claim, which became the basis for leaving the claim without consideration.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court, sitting as the Cassation Administrative Court, disagreed with the decisions of the lower courts.

The court emphasized that the mere fact of the envelope's return is insufficient to conclude "proper delivery." The courts should have checked whether an SMS notification about the arrival of the letter was sent, whether the postman placed a notice in the mailbox, and whether the storage deadlines (30 days for registered letters) were observed. Without verifying these facts, the conclusion about the person's awareness is premature.

Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out that negative consequences cannot be imposed on the plaintiff solely based on the assumption that the employer fulfilled their obligation under Article 110 of the Labor Code. There was no evidence in the case materials that the employer actually explained to the plaintiff the grounds for the deductions. Thus, the courts allowed excessive formalism.

Separately, the Supreme Court drew attention to the nature of partial debt repayment. The mere fact of payment in 2023 is not unconditional proof that the person was aware of the content, details, and legal consequences of specific decisions of the authority. Such payment could have been made without full understanding of the legal nature of the respective act.

At the same time, the Supreme Court stressed that when assessing the validity of reasons for missing procedural deadlines, courts must consider all individual circumstances of the case collectively. In particular, factors such as the plaintiff's age, for example, pensioner status, health condition, as well as martial law conditions, including shelling, regular air raid alerts, and power outages, are taken into account. According to the Supreme Court's approach, these factors require comprehensive evaluation and can be significant in concluding the presence or absence of valid reasons for missing the deadline to file a claim.

The Supreme Court decision in case No. 420/11772/25 serves as a guideline for administrative practice regarding access to justice and the assessment of procedural deadlines.

The court emphasized that the approach to determining a person's awareness of tax or other government decisions cannot be based solely on formal assumptions. In particular, the mere fact of returning postal correspondence with marks about the expiration of the storage period or absence of the addressee is not unconditional proof of proper notification if the propriety and good faith of the postal operator's actions and the actual delivery circumstances were not verified.

Separately, the Supreme Court highlighted the distinction of duties among various subjects of legal relations. Thus, the employer's obligation to inform the employee about wage deductions under the Labor Code cannot automatically replace the obligation of authorities to properly prove the fact of receipt or actual awareness of the person regarding a specific decision.

The decision also emphasizes the principle of officially clarifying all essential circumstances of the case. Courts should not limit themselves to formal acceptance of the authority's arguments but independently verify facts affecting the realization of the person's right to access the court.

The Supreme Court also recognized that martial law conditions, including security risks, shelling, and infrastructure disruptions, may be relevant circumstances when assessing the validity of reasons for missing procedural deadlines and must be considered by courts together with other evidence.

As a result of the review, the case was sent back for a new trial to the court of first instance. This provides the plaintiff with the opportunity for a repeated substantive consideration of the claims, with verification of the legality of social security contribution charges and other financial obligations. Thus, the Supreme Court effectively confirmed that the right to judicial protection must be real and cannot be reduced to a formal procedural barrier.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.