Concluded JRS with the seller - get a fine of the State Labor.
The State Labor Office fined the entrepreneur UAH 780,000 for undocumented employees (sellers). The entrepreneur filed a lawsuit to the court to cancel the fine. He substantiated his claims with civil law agreements concluded with employees and noted that the relationship between them is civil law, not labor.
The Supreme Court as a part of the panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation in its decision of 25.11.2019 in case №620 / 392/19 sided with the State Labor. The court noted that the analysis of the contract can be concluded that there is an employment relationship. This is evidenced by the observance by employees of the established work schedule, long-term nature of the relationship, monthly remuneration in a fixed amount and the systematic performance of labor functions, purchase and sale of goods.
You can read more about the conclusion of civil law agreements with employees and appeals against fines of the State Labor Service in our articles.
Has the owner of the premises changed? The court rejects the claim of the controllers to stop the operation of this room.
After conducting a scheduled inspection, the SES (firefighters) filed a lawsuit against the company to apply response measures by stopping the operation of the building. According to controllers. violations identified during the inspection posed a threat to human life and health. After the inspection, the owner of the said premises changed, but the lawsuit was filed with the previous owner.
By its decision of November 7, 2019, in case № 520/8993/18, the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation, confirmed the legality of the rejection of the SES claim. The court noted that the response measure in the form of suspension of the building could not be applied to an enterprise that did not own the premises.
You can read more about the case law in disputes over claims of the SES to stop the operation of buildings at link.
Environmentalists do not have the right to sue for an obligation to allow an inspection.
After the company's representatives refused to allow the inspector of the State Coinspection to conduct a scheduled inspection, the inspectorate filed a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation in its decision of 15.11.2019 in case №825 / 523/16 once again confirmed that neither the Laws of Ukraine "On Environmental Protection" and "On the basic principles of state supervision (control) in the field economic activity ", neither the Regulations on the State Ecological Inspectorate of Ukraine, nor other current legislation of Ukraine provides for the right of the State Coinspection to go to court with a claim for the obligation to allow employees to conduct inspections.
Inspection plans for 2020 have been approved
The regulatory authorities have approved plans for the schedule of inspections for 2020. The largest number of inspections next year will be conducted by the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (more than 44 thousand inspections). The State Service of Ukraine for Food Safety and Consumer Protection plans to conduct more than 22 thousand inspections, and the State Service of Ukraine for Labor more than 16 thousand The inspection plans and the list of regulatory authorities that will inspect the business in 2020 can be found at Inspection portal. You can read more about the procedure for inspections by regulatory authorities in our article.