1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the former rector of the Academy of the State Penitentiary Service, PERSON_1, of damages caused to the state as a result of the illegal dismissal of an employee.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the dispute arose in connection with the infliction of damage to the state during the defendant’s public service, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The court took into account that in order to resolve the issue of compensation for damages, it is necessary to assess the legality of the defendant’s actions as rector, which is within the competence of the administrative court. The court also noted that the circumstances established in the previous case on reinstatement of the employee are not of prejudicial significance, since PERSON_1 did not participate in its consideration. The court emphasized that the prosecutor’s reference to the case law of the Supreme Court regarding the consideration of such disputes in the order of civil proceedings is erroneous, since there are conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that have priority. The court of cassation instance emphasized that in the case of resolving a dispute regarding the obligation of a person holding a state/public service position to compensate for damage or losses caused as a result of the performance of their official/positional duties, the court faces the issue of not only establishing the amount of damage/losses caused, but also assessing the legality of the actions of such person.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance to close the proceedings in the case, determining that the dispute is subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings.
