1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recognition of the inaction of the State Enterprise “Ukraerorukh” as unlawful regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration in the amount of 30,000 UAH to a serviceman seconded to this enterprise, as provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the legal status of servicemen seconded to state enterprises is regulated by a separate regulatory act — Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 104, which determines a specific procedure for the payment of monetary support.
– A key factor was the application of the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the additional remuneration under Resolution No. 168 is an incentive payment specifically for servicemen directly performing combat missions as part of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
– The court emphasized that seconded personnel receive monetary support from the funds of the enterprise to which they are seconded, and they are not subject to the general terms of payments established for servicemen serving directly in military units.
– **Note:** In this case, the court officially departed from its previous position set forth in the ruling of February 29, 2024, in case No. 320/2090/23, where the right of seconded servicemen to receive such remuneration had previously been recognized.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the heads of state enterprises do not have the authority to issue orders for the payment of remuneration provided for by the “wartime” Resolution No. 168, as this exceeds their competence.
– Consequently, the court concluded that the absence of payment does not constitute unlawful inaction, as there are no legal grounds for it within the scope of the special regulation for seconded personnel.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim unchanged.
