1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging by a prosecutor of a personnel commission\u2019s decision on the unsuccessful completion of an attestation and the subsequent order on dismissal from the prosecutor’s office.<\/p>\n
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
\n* The Court affirmed that during the attestation process, personnel commissions have the authority to verify the integrity of prosecutors, in particular, the consistency of their assets and expenditures with declared income, and that this does not constitute a duplication of the powers of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP).
\n* At the same time, the Court emphasized that a decision of a personnel commission must be properly substantiated and not based solely on general doubts or assumptions regarding the prosecutor’s lifestyle.
\n* Since the commission\u2019s decision on the unsuccessful completion of the attestation was found to be unsubstantiated, the dismissal order issued on its basis is also unlawful.
\n* The Court also took into account the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 11-r(II)\/2024, by which the provisions of Clause 9, Part 1 of Article 51 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office” (regarding dismissal due to liquidation\/reorganization) were declared unconstitutional.
\n* The Supreme Court applied the approach established in the ruling of the Judicial Chamber dated December 10, 2024, according to which courts have the right to directly apply the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine if a law contradicts it, even if said law was declared unconstitutional after the emergence of the disputed legal relations.
\n* On this basis, the Supreme Court supplemented the reasoning part of the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the correctness of the conclusion regarding the illegality of the plaintiff’s dismissal.<\/p>\n
3. **Judgment of the Court:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the Office of the Prosecutor General, amending the reasoning part of the lower courts’ decisions by supplementing it with the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, but left the decisions on the reinstatement of the plaintiff to their position and the payment of their average earnings unchanged.<\/p>\n