Subject of Dispute: Challenging Orders on Disciplinary Proceedings and Dismissal of a Civil Servant for Violation of the Oath.
Key Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that when dismissing a civil servant for violating the Oath, the facts of unlawful behavior that undermine trust in the person as a power holder must be clearly proven.
2. The Disciplinary Commission did not provide specific facts of non-performance of official duties, but used a general formulation of “violation of the Oath”.
3. The plaintiff cannot bear personal responsibility for the collegial decisions of the Commission, as legal liability has an individual nature.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court overturned previous court decisions and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a more detailed examination of the circumstances of dismissal.
Note: The court essentially deviated from the previous practice of unconditionally accepting the formulation “violation of the Oath” as a ground for dismissal.
