1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances because they violated the rules of territorial jurisdiction by considering a case that is subject to consideration by a commercial court, not a court of general jurisdiction. The court noted that the dispute arose between the financial director and the joint-stock company, and the relationship between them is corporate, which, according to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, assigns the case to the jurisdiction of the commercial court. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances unlawfully considered a dispute concerning the management of a legal entity, which is also within the competence of the commercial court. The court pointed out that the courts did not take into account the постанову (resolution) of the Supreme Court as part of the संयुक्त राष्ट्रसङ्घीय एकीकृत सभामुखीय कक्ष (United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court) of June 24, 2024, in case No. 554/7669/21 and did not take into account the conclusion regarding the application of the norms of Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, informing the plaintiff that the consideration of this case falls under the jurisdiction of the commercial court.
Skip to content
Skip to sidebar
Skip to footer
