Late appeal after an e-government notification marked 'delivered'

Electronic notification is legally significant, but validity depends on the applicable rules and on whether the addressee had a real opportunity to learn of the decision. The system log shows upload to S.'s personal account, a 'delivered' status, and an SMS to her registered number. That is prima facie evidence of proper notification: the state is entitled to rely on the registered electronic address, and an entrepreneur is expected to monitor it or arrange representation. However, notification is not an end in itself; it must not become a trap that defeats access to a court. The judge should check whether the decision itself stated the appeal period and authority, whether the portal's 'delivered' status means actual receipt or only transmission, and whether the SMS contained enough information to alert S. to the need to act. The hospitalization is relevant but not automatically decisive: many patients can use a phone. The judge should not hold the notification invalid solely because S. did not log in. Instead, the judge should treat notification as valid but consider whether the deadline can be restored because S. had a valid excuse for not filing in time.

Restoration is discretionary and requires a valid reason for missing the deadline plus a timely request. S. must explain the whole period, not only the hospitalization. The key facts are: when she learned of the decision, what she did after discharge on 3 April, why she waited until 8 April, and whether anyone could have filed for her. The hospital discharge summary proves hospitalization from 14 March to 3 April, but it does not prove incapacity to communicate or to authorize a representative. The judge should also consider the shortness of the delay-five days after discharge-and the absence of prejudice to the tax authority, since the fine is unpaid and the administrative record is preserved. The burden is on S. to show a valid excuse, but the standard should not be so strict that a genuinely ill entrepreneur loses appeal rights. A balanced ruling would restore the deadline if S. credibly explains that she was unable to act during hospitalization and acted promptly after discharge. If she merely forgot or chose not to check the account, restoration should be refused, because the electronic delivery was valid.

Refusal does not leave S. without options, but the judge must make clear what they are. The judge should explain that the appeal is returned or left unprocessed because the deadline expired, while noting that S. may challenge the fine through supervisory review only on limited grounds, or dispute the underlying tax obligation in a separate procedure if the law allows. The ruling should not imply that the tax decision is automatically lawful; it decides admissibility, not the merits. The reasoning must address the electronic notification, the hospitalization, and the promptness after discharge. It should also record that S. was informed of the deadline and the consequences of missing it. If the judge finds the notification deficient-for example, if the decision did not state the appeal period-the judge should not refuse restoration on deadline grounds, because a defective notification cannot start the clock. In that case, the judge should treat the appeal as filed within a reasonable time and proceed to the merits. The safest approach is to hold a short hearing on the notification and illness facts before deciding.