Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the State of material damages caused to a prosecutor as a result of salary payments in a smaller amount due to the application of provisions of the Budget Code, which were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court, relying on the legal position of the Joint Chamber in case No. 160\/6949\/20, emphasized that the unconstitutionality of a law entails a person’s right to compensation for the restriction of their guarantees, and the absence of a special law regarding the procedure for such payments does not release the State from liability. The Court noted that proper material provision for prosecutors is a guarantee of their independence; therefore, the application of an unconstitutional provision that narrowed these guarantees is a ground for compensation for damages. At the same time, the Court clearly distinguished between periods: damages are subject to compensation only for the duration of the unconstitutional restriction until the moment Law No. 113-IX, which introduced new labor remuneration regulations, entered into force. The Court also emphasized that the proper defendant is the prosecution authority that performed the accruals, not the Treasury. Taking into account the findings of the forensic examination, the Court independently recalculated the amount of damages, excluding the periods for which the plaintiff was not entitled to such payments. **** In this decision, the Supreme Court effectively consolidated a unified approach to resolving disputes regarding the compensation for damages caused by unconstitutional acts, departing from previous practice where courts often dismissed claims due to the absence of a special legislative mechanism for payments.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the dismissal of the claim, and adopted a new decision to recover material damages in the amount of UAH 2,373,042.69 from the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office in favor of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n