On January 31, Vitebsk / Diana Kurilo - BELTA /. The Economic Court of the Vitebsk Region notes a decrease in the number of cases concerning disputes on invalidation of acts of state and other bodies, as reported to BELTA by Natalia Stefanovich, judge of the Economic Court of the Vitebsk Region. In accordance with the Regulation on the Procedure for Organising and Conducting Inspections, approved by Decree No. 510 of October 16, 2009 "On Improving Control (Supervisory) Activities in the Republic of Belarus", audited entities are granted the right to appeal decisions of the controlling body on inspection reports, requirements for rectifying violations, and actions of inspectors. In 2010, audited entities exercised this right and filed 47 applications for the invalidation of acts of customs authorities, executive and administrative bodies, tax inspectorates of the Ministry of Taxes and Levies, committees of state control bodies, and financial investigation bodies of the committee of state control, of which only 21.3% were satisfied fully or partially. In 2011, 39 such applications were filed, of which 20.5% were satisfied partially or fully. Audited entities most frequently challenge acts of tax inspectorates of the Ministry of Taxes and Levies, and executive and administrative bodies. In this regard, approximately 13% of applications are satisfied against tax authorities, and about one-third against executive and administrative bodies. According to Natalia Stefanovich, the decrease in cases challenging inspection reports is a direct consequence of Decree No. 510 of October 16, 2009, which regulates and tightens requirements for control and inspection bodies and reduces the number of inspections. The latter factor also affects the improvement of the quality of work of inspectors. It should be noted that, in accordance with the provisions of the decree, actions or inaction of officials of a controlling body regarding the failure of an official of a controlling body to record an inspection in the inspection logbook upon its presentation, a decision to refuse a challenge to an inspector, a decision on an inspection report, and a requirement to rectify violations may be appealed. In the latter case, the audited entity has the right to choose the most convenient way to protect its violated rights and legitimate interests: filing a complaint with a higher controlling body or a higher official does not preclude the right to simultaneously or subsequently appeal the decision of the controlling body in court.