Such a conclusion was made by the panel of judges of the Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in its ruling of June 12, 2019 in the case No. 904/3681/18.

In the circumstances of the case, the company appealed to the court to recognize the illegal actions of the enterprise "Dniprovodokanal" regarding the presentation of the calculation of the amount of payment for wastewater with excessive pollution.

Courts of all three instances  denied in the satisfaction of the suit. As it was noted by the Supreme Court, the rules of sewage treatment of enterprises in communal and departmental sanitation systems of settlements stipulate that enterprises are obliged:

- to observe the quantitative  indicators of wastewater installed on the sewage company by the water supply canal;

- to pay bills for excessive pollution in case of violation of established indicators;

- to provide the employees of the water supply company with the necessary information regarding their sewage system, assistance in the selection of waste water samples of the enterprise, determination of their discharging regime, inspection of the sewage system of the enterprise and local treatment facilities.

The sampling of one-off wastewater from enterprises is carried out by authorized representatives of the water channel, which is fixed in the act, which is legally valid and is the basis for charging the fee for the removal of excessive pollution (in case of detecting the excess of the permissible concentration).

It was established by the courts that the relevant act had established an exceedance of the permissible concentrations of orthophosphates. On the results of the research, the water channel informed the subscriber by letter and indicated the payment of the charge for wastewater discharges with excessive contamination. The company did not contest the results of laboratory tests of the selected samples.

It was also found that this violation was repeated twice during the year, while the company did not use its right and did not initiate a parallel and arbitrage analysis of a one-time sample.

Taking into account the foregoing, the calculation of the increased fee in the opinion of the courts is reasonable.

The full text of the ruling of the Sun can be found at the link.