{"id":5703,"date":"2025-02-23T09:06:43","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:06:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-400-8344-23-dated-18-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:06:43","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:06:43","slug":"case-no-400-8344-23-dated-18-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-400-8344-23-dated-18-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 400\/8344\/23 dated 18\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Refusal to Pay One-Time Monetary Assistance to a Police Officer in Connection with Loss of Professional Capacity.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The right to receive one-time monetary assistance arises under three mandatory conditions: the cause of disability is a service-related illness; disability was established before or within 6 months after dismissal; the reason for dismissal is related to such illness.<\/p>\n<p>2. The courts of previous instances did not establish the key circumstance &#8211; the exact date of submission of documents to the medical and social expert commission, which is decisive for establishing the right to assistance.<\/p>\n<p>3. The Supreme Court deviates from previous practice, emphasizing the need for a clear establishment of all circumstances of the case, especially the date of submission of medical documents.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Revoke the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly establish all circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125248043\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Refusal to Pay One-Time Monetary Assistance to a Police Officer in Connection with Loss of Professional Capacity. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The right to receive one-time monetary assistance arises under three mandatory conditions: the cause of disability is a service-related illness; disability was established before or within 6&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-5703","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\/5703","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=5703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}