{"id":5258,"date":"2025-02-13T09:41:07","date_gmt":"2025-02-13T07:41:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-420-17186-22-dated-06-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-13T09:41:07","modified_gmt":"2025-02-13T07:41:07","slug":"case-no-420-17186-22-dated-06-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-420-17186-22-dated-06-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 420\/17186\/22 dated 06\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Brief Analysis of the Court Decision:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the orders of dismissing police officer PERSON_1 from service due to committing a disciplinary offense.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Court Arguments: The court deviated from previous practice, which previously provided a more lenient approach to service investigations.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; The disciplinary offense consisted of the plaintiff:<br \/>\na) unjustifiably contacting a person during obtaining an illegal benefit<br \/>\nb) improperly controlling service weapon (lost magazine and ammunition)<br \/>\nc) undermining the police authority through his actions<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; The absence of a criminal court verdict is not an obstacle for dismissal, as the plaintiff was dismissed for violating service discipline.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; The plaintiff&#8217;s actions discredit the police officer&#8217;s rank and are incompatible with further service.<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Uphold the administrative appellate court&#8217;s resolution denying the claim and support the dismissal of PERSON_1 from police service.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125011976\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Brief Analysis of the Court Decision: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the orders of dismissing police officer PERSON_1 from service due to committing a disciplinary offense. 2. Main Court Arguments: The court deviated from previous practice, which previously provided a more lenient approach to service investigations. &#8211; The disciplinary offense consisted&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5258","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}