{"id":7100,"date":"2025-03-21T09:34:42","date_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:34:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-686-32122-23-dated-26-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-21T09:34:42","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:34:42","slug":"case-no-686-32122-23-dated-26-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-686-32122-23-dated-26-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 686\/32122\/23 dated 26\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Dismissal of a State Enterprise Director as Illegal Due to Revocation of State Secret Clearance<\/p>\n<p>Key Court Arguments:<\/p>\n<p>1. The dispute regarding the dismissal of an employee under paragraph 2 of part one of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (due to revocation of state secret clearance) should be considered under civil proceedings rules, not commercial proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>2. The court deviates from previous practice and clearly defines that corporate relations are not decisive when dismissing a manager under labor legislation.<\/p>\n<p>3. Even if the dismissal is carried out by a state property management body, this does not change the jurisdiction of the dispute.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To leave the appellate court resolution unchanged, to reject the cassation appeal of JSC &#8220;Ukroboronprom&#8221; without satisfaction.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125876173\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Dismissal of a State Enterprise Director as Illegal Due to Revocation of State Secret Clearance Key Court Arguments: 1. The dispute regarding the dismissal of an employee under paragraph 2 of part one of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (due to revocation&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-7100","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\/7100","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=7100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}