Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The case concerns a claim filed by a former prosecutor to recognize the inaction of the prosecutor’s office as unlawful and to compel compensation for material damage caused by the payment of salary in an understated amount due to the application of unconstitutional provisions of the Budget Code of Ukraine.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Supreme Court, composed of the Joint Chamber, departed from previous inconsistent positions of other judicial panels, establishing a unified approach to the resolution of such disputes.
* The Court confirmed that the absence of a special law on the procedure for compensating damage caused by an unconstitutional act is not grounds for dismissing a claim, as Article 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine is a provision of direct effect.
* Recognizing a provision of law as unconstitutional means that it contradicted the Constitution from the moment of its adoption, rather than from the date of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, which creates a legal basis for claims for damages for the past period.
* The proper defendant in such cases is the prosecutor’s office that performed the calculation and payment of monetary compensation, as it was its actions that led to the emergence of the property damage.
* At the same time, the Court noted that the courts of lower instances did not establish the actual amount of damage, as they failed to take into account the allowances, bonuses, and additional payments actually received by the plaintiff, as well as the periods of vacation and sick leave that affect salary calculation.
* Due to the incomplete clarification of the factual circumstances of the case, which are decisive for determining the amount of compensation, the courts of first and appellate instances committed procedural violations.
3. **Decision of the Court:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a proper calculation of the amount of damage.
