Here is the analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decisions by the lower courts to leave the statement of claim of a serviceman regarding the recalculation and payment of monetary allowance without consideration due to the alleged expiry of the time limit for applying to the court.
2. In this case, the Court was guided by the legal position established by the Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court on March 21, 2025, departing from previous conclusions regarding the application of time limits for applying to the court. The Court emphasized that for servicemen, the beginning of the three-month period for applying to the court is not the date of receipt of the monthly monetary allowance, but the moment when the person received reliable and documented information about the amount and components of the sums accrued to them (for example, a pay slip or a certificate). The courts of first and appellate instances erroneously failed to examine whether the respondent had brought such calculations to the plaintiff’s notice before the moment the plaintiff received an official response to their inquiry. Since the courts did not establish when exactly the plaintiff objectively learned about the violation of their rights, the conclusion regarding the expiry of the time limit was premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the fact that the calculations were brought to the notice of the serviceman lies with the entity exercising authority. Therefore, the courts violated procedural rules by failing to ensure proper clarification of the circumstances relevant to calculating the time limit for applying to the court.
3. The Supreme Court decided to set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the judgment of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the consideration on the merits.
