Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your inquiry.
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the claim filed by the State Management of Affairs to recognize as unlawful and to cancel the decision of a trade union organization to demand the termination of the employment contract with the head of a state-owned enterprise, due to the lack of coordination of this demand with another trade union organization operating at the same enterprise.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court of first instance satisfied the claim, relying on the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which required trade unions to coordinate their actions to protect the interests of all employees if several trade union organizations operate at an enterprise.
– However, the appellate court, when reviewing the case, took into account a new legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which fundamentally changed the approach to this issue.
– The court noted that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its ruling dated 21.01.2026 (case No. 359/8573/20), departed from previous conclusions, establishing that each trade union organization has the right to independently file a demand for the dismissal of a manager, regardless of the presence of other trade unions or a joint representative body.
– The appellate court emphasized that since the sole basis of the claim was precisely the lack of coordination of actions between trade unions, after the change in the legal position of the Supreme Court, this ground became legally untenable.
– The court also pointed out that it cannot consider new grounds for the claim (for example, an assessment of the manager’s actions) that were not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance.
– The Supreme Court in the cassation instance confirmed the correctness of this approach, noting that the court has no right to establish new facts or change the grounds of a claim at the cassation stage.
– In summary, the cassation court stated that the arguments of the appellants regarding the incomplete consideration of legal conclusions were not confirmed, as the appellate court correctly applied the current practice of the Grand Chamber.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which had denied the claim.
