Law enforcers return seized property after almost two years of delay 

Prosecutors' office inactivity Dnipropetrovs'k region

Subject of complaint: Prosecutor’s General Office of Ukraine (PGO) 
Complaint in brief: A company specializing in processing of fruits and vegetables turned to the Council with a complaint about omission of the PGO. 
Charging the company with tax evasion, in April 2017 law enforcers searched the Complainant’s offices and seized computer equipment and hard drives with information. This blocked the company’s activities, of course. 
A few months later, the court ruled in favor of the Complainant and ordered law enforcers to return the seized property. According to the law, a court ruling is mandatory for execution. However, when the PGO failed to comply with the court decision for over six months, the company applied to the Council for help. 
Actions taken: The Council addressed the PGO in writing, stressing that the court decision was subject to mandatory implementation. The law enforcers said in reply they did not understand exactly how to do it and, therefore, only in March 2018 they turned to the court for clarification of the procedure for implementation of the decision. 
The Council’s investigator brought up the company’s complaint for expert group consideration between the PGO and the BOC. However, PGO representatives insisted that they would be able to comply with the aforementioned ruling only after consideration of their appeal by the court. A court session on this matter was postponed several times, and only in December 2018 the court refused to give explanation to the PGO, since the court order clearly defined procedure for its implementation. 
Result achieved: In February 2019, the Council turned to the PGO again and requested to comply with the court decision. In March 2019, the PGO has complied with the court ruling issued back in August 2017. All the seized property was returned to the company. The Complainant thanked the Council for its continued support and assistance in resolving the case. 

Next case:: SFS complies with court decision and registers disputed tax invoices