The Supreme Court explained why the arrest of accounts is not a reason to suspend the State Labor Service fine

The mere fact of initiating enforcement proceedings and arresting accounts is not sufficient grounds for securing a claim. If a company asks the court to suspend the enforcement of a State Labor Service fine until the case is resolved, it must prove that without such a measure, it will be impossible or excessively difficult to protect its rights. This requires concrete evidence of the company's financial condition and risks to its activities. This conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in case No. 160/24879/25.

Case circumstances

The company appealed the decision of the South-Eastern Interregional Department of the State Labor Service imposing a fine of 128 thousand UAH for preventing an inspection and creating obstacles during its conduct.

Along with the lawsuit, it filed a motion to secure the claim and requested to suspend the enforcement of the fine in the open enforcement proceedings until the court decision in the case becomes final.

The company justified its position by stating that the state enforcement officer had already initiated enforcement proceedings and arrested the bank accounts. According to the applicant, the funds in these accounts come from co-owners of apartment buildings as payment for housing and communal services, so the arrest of accounts could negatively affect the proper maintenance of the housing stock.

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court agreed with these arguments and suspended the fine enforcement. The Third Administrative Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and denied the motion to secure the claim.

The court noted that securing a claim is an exceptional procedural mechanism applied only when properly substantiated grounds exist. A person requesting such measures must prove that without them, the execution of a future court decision or effective protection of their rights will be significantly complicated or impossible.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the company did not provide any documents confirming its financial condition. The motion did not include information about working capital, account balances, company assets, or other financial indicators that would allow assessing the impact of the fine on its activities. There was also no evidence in the case materials that the enforcement of the 128 thousand UAH fine would actually make the company's further business activities impossible or significantly difficult.

According to the Supreme Court, without such evidence, it is impossible to establish the proportionality of the securing measure and assess whether there is a real threat to the rights and interests of the applicant.

No automatic suspension of enforcement proceedings

The Supreme Court separately emphasized that the State Labor Service's decision to impose a fine is an independent enforcement document and, after the expiration of the voluntary payment period, can be enforced by the state enforcement service.

At the same time, the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" does not contain provisions that would provide for automatic suspension of enforcement actions or proceedings solely because the State Labor Service's decision is being appealed in court. Therefore, the issue of securing a claim must be decided by the court in each specific case, taking into account the proven circumstances and submitted evidence.

The court also stressed that suspending enforcement actions is not identical to securing a claim by suspending the effect of the fine decision, so each of these procedural mechanisms has its own grounds for application.

Legal position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court stated that negative financial consequences for a business entity alone are not an unconditional ground for securing a claim. Entrepreneurial activity is conducted at one's own risk, and therefore mere reference to the arrest of accounts, possible losses, or other adverse consequences from the enforcement of a state authority's decision does not indicate the necessity of applying securing measures.

The court concluded that to suspend the enforcement of the State Labor Service fine, the applicant must provide proper evidence of their financial condition and justify why the absence of securing measures will significantly complicate or make impossible the effective protection of their rights. In the absence of such evidence, there are no grounds for securing the claim.

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