1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the act of special investigation of an acute occupational disease with a fatal outcome of a doctor who died from COVID-19.
2. The court partially satisfied the claim, canceling the act of special investigation, since the commission conducted the investigation incompletely, did not take into account all the circumstances, and did not provide a proper assessment of all materials. The court noted that the competence of the commission includes establishing the connection of the accident with production, and the court cannot assume these functions. The court also took into account that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and assessed the evidence according to its internal conviction, which is based on a comprehensive, complete, objective, and direct examination of the evidence available in the case. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute these conclusions and do not affect the legality of the court decisions. **:** The court of cassation referred to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of May 22, 2024, which states that it is the commission that establishes the fact of connection or non-connection of the accident with production, and the court is not authorized to establish or consider this fact proven. In the same resolution, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the conclusion of the Cassation Civil Court as part of the Supreme Court, formulated in the resolution of December 13, 2023, in case No. 459/1639/22, regarding the court’s authority to recognize an accident as related to production.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
