1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by a serviceman against the decision of the housing commission of the military unit to remove him from the housing register and the requirement to reinstate him on this register.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the fact that the dispute arose in connection with the plaintiff’s military service, which is a type of public service. The court noted that the state provides social guarantees for servicemen, in particular, the right to housing, and disputes regarding the implementation of these guarantees fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts. The court emphasized that since the plaintiff believes that his right to housing was violated precisely in connection with his military service, this dispute should be considered under the rules of administrative procedure. The court also took into account the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, set out in other resolutions, regarding the jurisdiction of administrative courts in disputes related to the performance of public service. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances mistakenly considered the case under the rules of civil procedure, violating the norms of procedural law. **:** The court noted that it departs from the previous position, which was stated in other decisions of the Supreme Court, regarding the consideration of such disputes under the rules of civil procedure.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to apply to the administrative court to resolve the dispute.
