{"id":7010,"date":"2025-03-20T09:30:55","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-300-842-23-dated-13-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-20T09:30:55","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:30:55","slug":"case-no-300-842-23-dated-13-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-300-842-23-dated-13-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 300\/842\/23 dated 13\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Payment of Average Earnings to an Employee on Military Service during Mobilization.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The court deviates from previous judicial practice and forms a new legal position regarding the preservation of average earnings for employees performing scientific and pedagogical activities during mobilization.<\/p>\n<p>2. A law adopted in 2022 canceled the general rule of preserving average earnings for mobilized individuals, but maintained such a guarantee for pedagogical and scientific-pedagogical employees.<\/p>\n<p>3. The plaintiff actually performed the functions of a scientific-pedagogical employee, despite the formal position of a first-category specialist, which is confirmed by his scientific publications and additional responsibilities.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the decision of the appellate court and refer the case for a new review to clarify the employee&#8217;s status in detail.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125825554\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Payment of Average Earnings to an Employee on Military Service during Mobilization. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court deviates from previous judicial practice and forms a new legal position regarding the preservation of average earnings for employees performing scientific and pedagogical activities during mobilization. 2. A law adopted in 2022&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-7010","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\/7010","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=7010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7010\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}