In Odessa, a vendor from the 7-kilometer mark succeeded in having his fines overturned in court

The Odessa Court of Appeals upheld the cancellation of fines totaling 306,000 hryvnias imposed on a business owner from the “7 Kilometer” market. The State Labor Service failed to prove that it had ordered an inspection specifically targeting him in accordance with the rules.

This is stated in the ruling of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal.

In the summer of 2025, the Southern Interregional Directorate of the State Labor Service inspected personal protective equipment at the“7 Kilometer” market in Avangard. A welder’s mask and a protective mesh shield were found in the private entrepreneur’s possession.

According to the inspection, the products lacked instructions in Ukrainian, a declaration of conformity, and a conformity mark. Therefore, the State Labor Service prohibited the sale of these items until they were brought into compliance.

The entrepreneur reported that he had removed the goods from sale and returned them to the supplier, who refused to rectify the deficiencies.

In August 2025, the State Labor Service inspected compliance with the decision. The inspector was denied access to the goods, and there were no documents confirming that the violations had been corrected. The business owner was issued four fines: 102,000, 51,000, 102,000, and 51,000 hryvnias, for a total of 306,000.

The business owner challenged the decisions. On June 2, 2026, the Odesa District Administrative Court granted the claim in full. The State Labor Service filed an appeal, but the court rejected it.

The panel of judges noted that the inspection order and the notice made no mention of this entrepreneur. They referred only to vendors on the market premises.

Furthermore, the State Labor Service did not provide evidence that the notice had been served on the entrepreneur—there is only a receipt confirming that his rights were explained to him.

Due to these violations, the court ruled that the decisions based on the inspection results—specifically the fines—lacked legal grounds.

Separately, the court noted that the entrepreneur acted in accordance with the law: he ceased sales, returned the goods to the supplier, and notified the State Labor Service of this in writing, providing supporting documents. These explanations were included in the inspection report, but the defendant did not take them into account.

Ірина Глухова