Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the refusal of the courts of lower instances to reinstate the time limit for filing a lawsuit regarding the recalculation and payment of monetary support to a military serviceman for the period from July 19, 2022, to May 19, 2023.<\/p>\n
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
\n * The Court emphasized that, pursuant to Part 2 of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the three-month period for filing a lawsuit begins from the moment when the employee learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights, in particular, from the date of receipt of written notification regarding the amounts accrued and paid upon dismissal.
\n * The Supreme Court recognized the monetary certificate (attestat) as a proper document confirming the individual\u2019s awareness of the amounts paid upon dismissal, as it contains information regarding actual payments.
\n * The Court noted that even though the certificate does not contain a detailed breakdown of the calculation mechanism (coefficients, subsistence minimum), this does not grant the plaintiff the right to indefinite delay in filing a lawsuit.
\n * The plaintiff received the certificate on March 4, 2025, but submitted a request for clarification of the calculation mechanism only in August 2025, without providing valid reasons for such prolonged inactivity.
\n * The Court emphasized that the three-month period includes the time necessary to take measures to obtain information; therefore, the plaintiff’s passive conduct for five months after dismissal indicates a failure to meet the deadline without valid reasons.
\n * The Supreme Court stated that applying the consequences of missing the deadline in this situation does not constitute excessive formalism but corresponds to the principle of legal certainty.
\n * **Key Precedent:** In this ruling, the Supreme Court detailed the application of the legal position set forth by the Judicial Chamber in case No. 460\/21394\/23, clarifying that the three-month period for filing a lawsuit encompasses the period during which a person must take measures to clarify the details of the accruals and cannot be artificially extended by submitting inquiries a long time after receiving the monetary certificate.<\/p>\n
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.<\/p>\n