Devoso wins: court overturns NEURC fine

Devoso wins: court overturns NEURC fine imposed on a supplier for “refusing an inspection”.

By its decision of 26.10.2026 in case No. 120/17521/25, the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court upheld in full the claim brought by our client, an electricity supplier. The court declared NEURC’s resolution imposing the fine unlawful and set it aside.

What happened

During a scheduled inspection, on the very first day, the NEURC commission drew up a report stating that the licensee had refused the inspection because it had “failed to provide information and documents”. On this basis, the Regulator recorded a refusal to allow the inspection and imposed a fine.

The court’s key finding: providing only some of the documents is not a refusal of inspection.

The day after the refusal report was drawn up, NEURC extended the same inspection. The court noted that the Regulator itself had therefore treated the inspection as ongoing.

From this, the court concluded:

“…the inspection of the Licensee was extended, which rules out any grounds for claiming that the inspectors were denied access to the inspection.”
“…the partial provision of documents and a failure to provide documents amounting to denial of access, and thus refusal of the inspection, are fundamentally different concepts.”

The court also stressed that any other interpretation would breach the principle of legal certainty. Otherwise, failing to provide even a single document could be treated as denying the Regulator access to the inspection.

Other breaches by NEURC found by the court:

1. Deadline for responding to a request was not respected. The Regulator first sent an erroneous request. The correct request reached the licensee with less time to respond than required by paragraph 4, part 2, Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine “On the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission” and the Control Procedure. The Regulator’s requests contained errors. They referred to the wrong type of licence, a different NEURC territorial office and a period outside the scope of the inspection. The court reiterated this principle: the Regulator set the procedure itself, so it is the first to be bound by it.

2. NEURC’s decision contradicts Supreme Court case law:

• denying NEURC officials access to an inspection is not a breach of the Licensing Conditions (Supreme Court rulings of 11.03.2021 in case No. 640/20494/19 and of 26.05.2021 in case No. 824/266/20-а);
• a broad interpretation of “other regulatory acts” gives the Regulator discretion without clear limits and is contrary to the “quality of law” requirement (Supreme Court rulings of 08.07.2021 in case No. 160/1598/20, of 02.11.2022 in case No. 260/2484/21 and of 01.05.2023 in case No. 540/913/21).

💬 Please note:
A report on refusal of an inspection may be drawn up only on the grounds set out in the Control Procedure, and NEURC cannot issue one automatically. If a licensee gave the Regulator access on the first day of the inspection and provided enough information for the analysis to begin, this is not a refusal, even if the set of documents is not yet complete.

So during inspections, keep a record of what you provided and when, and why the remaining documents need more time to prepare (volume, period covered, the deadline set in the request, the security situation, etc.). This evidence will form the basis of your defence.

The decision has not yet taken legal effect. NEURC may appeal within 30 days of the date the full text of the decision was drawn up.

🔗 Court decision in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions

The case was handled by DEVOSO Partner, attorney-at-law Viktoriia Bilan.