The Supreme Court has put an end to the matter: the claim brought by the Office of the Prosecutor General has been dismissed.

The team of lawyers at the "Synegor", led by lawyer Rostyslav Salamakha, secured a definitive victory in the Administrative Court of Cassation, part of the Supreme Court, in an administrative case brought by the Office of the Prosecutor General.

The panel of judges dismissed the Deputy Prosecutor General’s appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of first instance and appeal – the prosecutor’s claim was dismissed.

The Office of the Prosecutor General had brought proceedings against the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine and the State Commission on Mineral Reserves, seeking a declaration that their actions were unlawful and the revocation of the special permit for subsoil use.

However, there was one fundamental procedural issue that determined the outcome of the entire case – the time limit for bringing the matter before the court.

For public authorities, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine sets a three-month time limit for bringing proceedings. The prosecutor filed the claim in September 2023 – almost four and a half years after the contested permit was issued.

The lawyers provided the court with irrefutable evidence that the claimant had been aware of the circumstances forming the basis of the claim as early as June 2021. The prosecutor did not cite any valid reasons for such a significant failure to meet the time limit. The court took a critical view of the attempt to artificially ‘restart’ the limitation period by sending a new request to the public authority.

Our argument is based on the principle of legal certainty, which is fundamental both to Ukrainian legislation and to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Time limits for bringing a case to court exist not as a formal obstacle, but as a guarantee of the stability of legal relations and the equality of all parties to the proceedings – regardless of who the claimant is.

This principle made no exception for the Office of the Prosecutor General.

The courts of three instances correctly took into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court set out in its rulings of 23 August 2023 in case No. 380/7024/22, of 21 September 2023 in case No. 380/7550/22, of 1 May 2025 in case No. 480/4018/23, of 13 February 2024 in Case No. 340/3868/23, and of 25 March 2026 in Case No. 640/10619/20.

In their submission on the case, the representative of the subsoil user referred to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ‘Miragal Escolano and Others v. Spain’, in which the Court held that the limitation periods which applicants must observe when lodging complaints are intended to ensure the proper administration of justice and compliance with the principles of legal certainty. The parties to the proceedings must expect these rules to apply (judgment of 25 January 2000, paragraph 33).

Our client has received what everyone is entitled to – the certainty that their business is protected by law and that the rules of the game are the same for everyone.