{"id":7036,"date":"2025-03-20T09:41:08","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:41:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-380-3437-24-dated-14-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-20T09:41:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:41:08","slug":"case-no-380-3437-24-dated-14-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-380-3437-24-dated-14-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 380\/3437\/24 dated 14\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the court decision analysis:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Average Earnings for Untimely Settlement upon Dismissal of a Military Serviceman.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The court examined the application of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in various versions, including before and after amendments of July 19, 2022<br \/>\n&#8211; It was recognized that before July 19, 2022, partial reduction of the recovery amount was possible, taking into account the principles of fairness and proportionality<br \/>\n&#8211; After July 19, 2022, a limitation of 6 months of average earnings payment was introduced<br \/>\n&#8211; The court deviates from previous practice regarding full recovery of average earnings for the entire delay period<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: The resolution of the appellate court was canceled and the case was referred for a new review to recalculate the recovery amount, taking into account the new legal position.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125855186\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the court decision analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Average Earnings for Untimely Settlement upon Dismissal of a Military Serviceman. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The court examined the application of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in various versions, including before and after amendments&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-7036","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\/7036","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=7036"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7036\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}