Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal by the State Air Traffic Services Enterprise of Ukraine (“Ukraerorukh”) to accrue and pay an additional remuneration, provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168, to a serviceman seconded to this enterprise.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court set forth in the resolution dated August 29, 2024, in case No. 640/13029/22, departing from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court that allowed for the possibility of paying such remuneration to seconded servicemen. The court noted that Resolution No. 168 was adopted to incentivize servicemen directly involved in the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and does not apply to persons seconded to state bodies or institutions. For seconded servicemen, a special procedure for monetary support applies, as defined by CMU Resolution No. 104, which does not provide for the payment of additional remuneration under the “wartime” Resolution No. 168. Since the plaintiff received monetary support in accordance with their position at “Ukraerorukh” and the regulations governing the activities of seconded persons, there are no grounds for additional payments at the expense of the enterprise. The court emphasized that because the Grand Chamber has changed the legal position, courts are obliged to apply this current approach, which precludes the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claims.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal, which had denied the claim.
