Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Challenging the actions of a military unit regarding the refusal to recalculate the service member\u2019s monetary allowance taking into account the current subsistence minimum and the payment of relevant compensation.<\/p>\n
2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court of appeal erroneously left part of the claims without consideration by applying the three-month period for filing a lawsuit stipulated by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, without properly clarifying the circumstances of the plaintiff’s military service.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that following the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 1-r\/2025, the provisions of Article 233 of the Labor Code regarding the three-month period for the collection of wages were recognized as unconstitutional, which requires courts to directly apply the norms of the Constitution.
\n – The court stressed that for the correct application of procedural time limits, it is necessary to establish whether the person was in military service at the time of filing the lawsuit, as this affects the determination of the commencement of the limitation period.
\n – The appellate court did not examine evidence regarding the plaintiff’s transfer to another military unit, which could have been a valid reason for the reinstatement of time limits.
\n – The Court departed from the previous position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of March 21, 2023, in case No. 240\/7411\/21, confirming the possibility of direct application of the Constitution of Ukraine by courts in the event of identifying the unconstitutionality of legal norms, even if these norms were in effect at the time the legal relations arose.
\n – The Supreme Court indicated that the premature dismissal of a lawsuit without a full establishment of the factual circumstances constitutes a violation of procedural law norms, which impedes access to justice.<\/p>\n
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s resolution in the part concerning the dismissal of the lawsuit, and remanded the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n