Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective.
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Determination of the proper defendant and the source of compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage caused by a serviceman while performing his official duties.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that, pursuant to Part 1 of Article 1172 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, liability for damage caused by an employee (serviceman) while performing his labor or official duties is borne by the legal entity or individual employer, rather than the State.
– **Precedent update:** The Supreme Court officially departed from its own conclusion set forth in the ruling dated April 17, 2024 (case No. 335/3675/22), which previously allowed for the recovery of damages from the State Budget of Ukraine in similar legal relations.
– The Court clarified that Article 1174 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (compensation for damage by the State) applies only in cases of unlawful actions by officials in the exercise of their authority, which is not synonymous with causing damage by an employee during the performance of ordinary official duties.
– It was also established that the courts of lower instances did not take into account the status of the military unit as a separate subdivision rather than an independent legal entity, which necessitated the involvement of the proper defendant (the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine).
– Since the courts of first and appellate instances committed significant violations of procedural law by failing to identify the proper defendant, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to rectify these errors independently without examining new evidence.
– Thus, the Court underscored that the principle of property separation between public entities and the legal entities created by them precludes the automatic imposition of liability on the State Treasury Service for the actions of servicemen.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the court decisions regarding the recovery of non-pecuniary damage from the State Budget, and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance in accordance with civil procedure.
