Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court judgment provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the non-payment of monetary allowance to a person reinstated to the position of head of a penal institution, which underwent organizational changes (reorganization/optimization) at the time of reinstatement.
2. **Main arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts failed to establish key facts: whether the position to which the plaintiff was reinstated existed at the time of the issuance of the order, and what specific legal consequences the optimization of the institution had for this position.
– The Court emphasized that if a person is reinstated to a “formally existing” but factually absent position, this is not considered proper execution of a court decision, as there is no actual reinstatement to work.
– The Court departed from its previous position, noting that in the event of the impossibility of actual reinstatement to a position due to its elimination or reorganization, a person acquires the right to average earnings for the duration of the delay in executing the court decision, and not just to monetary allowance for the time actually worked.
– The Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not assess whether the legal successor of the institution is the proper defendant regarding the payment of funds.
– The Court also noted that determining the legal nature of the disputed relations (whether it is a delay in the execution of a court decision or non-payment of monetary allowance) is the duty of the court, and not only of the plaintiff.
– Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not ascertain the circumstances regarding the actual status of the position and legal succession, their decisions were found to be unfounded.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish all factual circumstances of the case.
