{"id":7382,"date":"2025-03-27T10:10:49","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:10:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-120-12668-23-dated-20-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:10:49","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:10:49","slug":"case-no-120-12668-23-dated-20-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-120-12668-23-dated-20-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 120\/12668\/23 dated 20\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Military Serviceman PERSON_1 challenges the inaction of military units regarding non-payment of additional compensation for participation in combat operations in the Chernihiv and Sumy regions in 2022.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considers that the appellate court prematurely denied the satisfaction of the claim without conducting a comprehensive analysis of the provided evidence. The court drew attention that the absence of formal documents cannot automatically deprive a serviceman of the right to compensation if there is other evidence of his participation in combat operations. The court pointed out a change in approaches to determining &#8220;direct participation&#8221; in combat operations compared to previous orders.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court revoked the resolution of the appellate court and referred the case for a new review to the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal to fully clarify all circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126004127\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Military Serviceman PERSON_1 challenges the inaction of military units regarding non-payment of additional compensation for participation in combat operations in the Chernihiv and Sumy regions in 2022. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considers that the appellate court prematurely denied the satisfaction of the claim without conducting a comprehensive&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-7382","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\/7382","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=7382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}