CRITICAL MISTAKES IN EXPORT OPERATIONS: ANALYSIS OF A REAL CASE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR BUSINESS (Part 2)
Resolving the Client’s situation required proactive and legally sound action in two parallel directions.
Debt Recovery Track
Challenging court rulings closing the proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts.
The supply contracts expressly stipulated that all disputes between the parties were subject to resolution by the courts of Ukraine.
Despite this, the courts justified the closure of the proceedings on the following grounds:
– the debtors (non-residents) had no assets in Ukraine and no registered representative offices;
– the jurisdiction clauses in the contracts were allegedly insufficiently specific;
– debt recovery disputes should allegedly be considered by a foreign court at the debtor’s place of residence.
Our actions:
– identified relevant case law in analogous disputes in favor of the Client;
– prepared well-reasoned appellate complaints;
– represented the Client before the appellate courts and won all cases;
– the opposing parties filed cassation appeals with the Supreme Court — we prepared comprehensive responses;
– represented the Client before the Supreme Court and secured a victory. The Court agreed with the Client’s position that the disputes fall within the jurisdiction of Ukrainian commercial courts at the Client’s location.
Result:
The rulings closing the proceedings were set aside, and the cases were remitted to the court of first instance for consideration on the merits.
At this stage, the court can no longer close the proceedings again on the same grounds and is obliged to examine the cases substantively.
Thus, we restored the Client’s ability to protect its rights in Ukraine rather than abroad.
Tax Dispute Track
Appealing the decision of the court of first instance in the tax dispute.
The Client’s request reached us in the final days of the deadline for filing an appeal, which required maximum mobilization of resources within an extremely limited timeframe.
The legal position with which the Client approached us was weak and insufficiently developed from a legal perspective. Given the procedural stage, submission of new evidence was no longer possible.
After the tax audit and receipt of the tax assessment notice, the Client immediately filed a claim with the court.
As a rule, we advise Clients who disagree with the results of a tax audit to first challenge them through the administrative appeal procedure — before a higher-level tax authority.
This allows time to:
– strengthen the legal position;
– form a solid evidentiary basis;
– prepare for judicial proceedings.
Based on our practice, approximately 50% of cases are successfully resolved at the administrative appeal stage, allowing Clients to save both time and costs.
Our actions:
– developed a creative legal enhancement of the Client’s position and set it out in detail in the appellate complaint;
– represented the Client before the appellate court;
– the appellate court dismissed the appeal;
– prepared a cassation appeal and represented the Client before the Supreme Court;
– the Supreme Court partially upheld the cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s decision, and remanded the case for a new consideration;
– the Court reasoned that the appellate court failed to provide a legal assessment of certain arguments that are essential for the proper resolution of the dispute.
What happened next will be covered in the following post.
This material is published with the Client’s consent.
19.12.2025
