**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a prosecutor from their position and from the prosecution authorities due to unsuccessful completion of the attestation process and the lack of proper justification for the grounds for such dismissal.
**2. Arguments of the Court**
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the decision of the Personnel Commission regarding the unsuccessful completion of the attestation is lawful, as the plaintiff completed the testing, received a score below the passing threshold, and the attestation procedure did not provide for the possibility of a retake under such conditions.
* The Court emphasized that re-taking the attestation is possible only in exceptional cases (technical failures or interruption of the examination), which did not occur in this case.
* At the same time, regarding the dismissal order, the Court pointed out the necessity of considering new legal positions, in particular the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of December 18, 2024, No. 11-r(II)/2024, by which paragraph 9 of part one of Article 51 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office” was declared unconstitutional.
* The Court noted that the courts of lower instances did not properly investigate the complex structure of the grounds for dismissal, where the order was based both on the results of the attestation and on the dismissal from military service due to staff reduction.
* It is important that the Court applied the principle of official investigation of circumstances, indicating the court’s duty to verify the compliance of the dismissal order with current legislation, taking into account the unconstitutionality of the norms relied upon by the employer.
* **Conclusion:** In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its previous position (set forth in the ruling of March 21, 2023, in case No. 240/7411/21) regarding the impossibility of applying part four of Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine to legal acts declared unconstitutional, confirming the right of courts to directly apply the Constitution of Ukraine as a norm of direct effect.
* The Court concluded that the appellate instance did not assess all grounds for dismissal; therefore, the case requires a new trial in this part.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court in the part concerning the refusal to reinstate the individual in their position and the recovery of earnings, remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court, and upheld the decision in the other part (regarding the decision of the Personnel Commission).
