1. The subject matter of the dispute concerns the lawfulness of the dismissal of a prosecutor from their position following the results of an attestation and the annulment of the relevant decision of the personnel commission.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that a decision of a personnel commission regarding the unsuccessful completion of attestation must be duly reasoned, which was not observed in this case. Although the court acknowledged that personnel commissions have the right to assess the integrity of prosecutors, they cannot substitute the NACP (National Agency on Corruption Prevention) in matters of full verification of declarations. At the same time, the court took into account that the ground for dismissal was Clause 9 of Part 1 of Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecution Service,” which the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional. The court emphasized that decisions of the Constitutional Court have direct effect, and courts are obligated to apply the Constitution as a norm of direct effect if a law contradicts it. Since the dismissal was based on an unlawful decision of the commission and an unconstitutional provision of law, it is illegal. The court in this case departed from the previous position of the Supreme Court regarding the impossibility of applying Part 4 of Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine to legal acts declared unconstitutional, and reaffirmed the right of courts to refuse to apply such acts.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning parts of the decisions of the lower courts, but leaving their operative parts regarding the satisfaction of the claim unchanged.
