1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a prosecutor from their position due to the unsuccessful completion of the attestation process, caused by their failure to appear for the examination due to being in custody.
2. The court confirmed that the decision of the personnel commission regarding the unsuccessful completion of the attestation was lawful, as the plaintiff failed to fulfill the procedural obligation to timely notify the commission of the reasons for their non-appearance, despite the existence of objective circumstances (detention in custody). At the same time, regarding the dismissal order, the Supreme Court applied new legal positions formed after the adoption of decisions by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Law No. 113-IX, which allowed for the dismissal of prosecutors without observing the guarantees of labor legislation (in particular, regarding the offering of vacant positions), were declared unconstitutional. Since the courts of previous instances did not provide a proper assessment of the defendant’s actions regarding compliance with the layoff procedure and did not take these constitutional guarantees into account, the decision regarding dismissal and reinstatement was overturned. The Court effectively departed from the previous practice of applying the norms of Law No. 113-IX, taking into account the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and new conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the direct effect of the Constitution of Ukraine when assessing the lawfulness of the dismissal of prosecutors.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision regarding the lawfulness of the attestation results, but overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the dismissal and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to verify compliance with the dismissal procedure, taking into account constitutional guarantees.
