The plaintiff appealed the decision to bring him to administrative liability under part 2 of Art. 122 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

In the decision on the administrative offense, which the plaintiff has appealed, it was said that the driver made a trip to the opposite side of the road, which has two lanes for movement in one direction, than violated the requirements of paragraph 11.4. of the Traffic Rules. However, the plaintiff indicated that he did not leave on the opposite side of the road, which has a solid lane, and therefore did not condone the said offense.

За чинним законодавством, громадяни, які працюють неповний робочий день, батьки двох і більше дітей та деякі інші категорії осіб мають право на податкову соціальну пільгу.

Ця соціальна пільга - це можливість платника податків зменшити нараховану суму місячної зарплатні на розмір такої пільги. Тобто зарплата зменшується на суму пільги і лише після цього оподатковується податком на доходи фізичних осіб.

Наразі загальна податкова пільга становить 50% місячного розміру прожиткового мінімуму для дієздатних осіб, встановленого на 1 січня звітного податкового року.

Тобто, якщо нині, станом на 1 січня 2019 року, прожитковий мінімум для дієздатних осіб становить 1921 грн, податкова пільга становитиме 960 грн 50 коп (50% від 1921 грн).

On January 23 a single account for the entry of customs duties began to operate in the pilot mode. By February 17, in such a mode, it will work only for Kyiv city and regional customs, and from February 18, its testing will begin at all customs offices in Ukraine.

Since March 16, the transitional period of the operation of a single customs account will already be in effect - it will be possible to pay customs duties on both old and new accounts.

And since April 16th - it will become a duty for all enterprises.

The courts of Ukraine considered the case on the claim of the company to the State Tax Inspectorate with the demand to recognize the unlawful unilateral termination of the contract on recognition of electronic documents for submission of reports and to renew the possibility of filing by electronic means in an electronic form of tax reporting.

The local, appellate, and later Supreme Courts decided to satisfy the claim and ordered the STI to renew the contract.

The respondent in the case informed the law-enforcement officers of the offenses that the plaintiff did not commit. As a result, the plaintiff appealed to the court requesting compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the distribution of inaccurate information.

Although the district court upheld the claim in part, the courts of appeal and cassation did not agree with such a decision.