{"id":5643,"date":"2025-02-21T09:43:03","date_gmt":"2025-02-21T07:43:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-160-16618-24-dated-17-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-21T09:43:03","modified_gmt":"2025-02-21T07:43:03","slug":"case-no-160-16618-24-dated-17-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-160-16618-24-dated-17-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 160\/16618\/24 dated 17\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding non-inclusion of certain monetary components in the monthly monetary allowance of a police officer upon dismissal.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The court drew attention that the respondent did not provide evidence of the plaintiff receiving a written notification about the accrued amounts upon dismissal, which is a mandatory condition under the legislation.<\/p>\n<p>2. The court pointed to the need to take into account the previous court ruling of June 06, 2024, in case No. 160\/24396\/23, which may influence the determination of the term for appealing to the court.<\/p>\n<p>3. The court considers the conclusions of previous instances about leaving the claim without consideration due to missed term to be premature.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of the circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125210545\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding non-inclusion of certain monetary components in the monthly monetary allowance of a police officer upon dismissal. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court drew attention that the respondent did not provide evidence of the plaintiff receiving a written notification about the accrued amounts upon dismissal, which is a mandatory&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-5643","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\/5643","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=5643"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5643\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}