{"id":7468,"date":"2025-03-27T10:42:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:42:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-460-9966-23-dated-21-03-2025-2\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:42:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:42:28","slug":"case-no-460-9966-23-dated-21-03-2025-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-460-9966-23-dated-21-03-2025-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 460\/9966\/23 dated 21\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging Orders on Disciplinary Proceedings and Dismissal of a Civil Servant for Violation of the Oath.<\/p>\n<p>Key Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The court established that when dismissing a civil servant for violating the Oath, the facts of unlawful behavior that undermine trust in the person as a power holder must be clearly proven.<br \/>\n2. The Disciplinary Commission did not provide specific facts of non-performance of official duties, but used a general formulation of &#8220;violation of the Oath&#8221;.<br \/>\n3. The plaintiff cannot bear personal responsibility for the collegial decisions of the Commission, as legal liability has an individual nature.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court overturned previous court decisions and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a more detailed examination of the circumstances of dismissal.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court essentially deviated from the previous practice of unconditionally accepting the formulation &#8220;violation of the Oath&#8221; as a ground for dismissal.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126036873\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging Orders on Disciplinary Proceedings and Dismissal of a Civil Servant for Violation of the Oath. Key Arguments of the Court: 1. The court established that when dismissing a civil servant for violating the Oath, the facts of unlawful behavior that undermine trust in the person as a power holder must be&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-7468","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\/7468","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=7468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7468\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}