Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request.<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal by the State Air Traffic Services Enterprise of Ukraine (“Ukraerorukh”) to pay a military serviceman seconded to this enterprise the additional remuneration provided for by Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 168.<\/p>\n
2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the provisions of CMU Resolution No. 168 regarding the payment of additional remuneration do not apply to military servicemen seconded to state bodies, institutions, and organizations. The Supreme Court, sitting as a Judicial Chamber, officially departed from its previous legal positions that had previously allowed for such a possibility. The Court noted that the monetary provision of such persons is regulated by a separate act \u2014 CMU Resolution No. 104, which does not provide for the payment of the additional remuneration established by the “wartime” Resolution No. 168. A systemic interpretation of the legislation, taking into account the preamble of Resolution No. 168, indicates that this remuneration is intended exclusively for military servicemen who are directly performing combat missions as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Since the right to receive the additional remuneration is absent, the court also found the cancellation of the additional decision on the recovery of legal aid expenses to be lawful, as it is derivative of the main decision, which was rendered in favor of the defendant.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, by which the plaintiff was completely denied satisfaction of the claims.<\/p>\n