{"id":7504,"date":"2025-03-28T09:23:57","date_gmt":"2025-03-28T07:23:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-359-13177-21-dated-12-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-28T09:23:57","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T07:23:57","slug":"case-no-359-13177-21-dated-12-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-359-13177-21-dated-12-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 359\/13177\/21 dated 12\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order to suspend an employee from work without pay due to refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19.<\/p>\n<p>2. Key Court Arguments:<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court indicated that suspension from work must be proportional and involve an individual risk assessment. In this case:<br \/>\n&#8211; The employee has only 4 direct and 2 indirect workplace contacts<br \/>\n&#8211; Workplaces are separated by glass<br \/>\n&#8211; There is no significant need for personal contact with people<\/p>\n<p>The court concluded that suspension without a detailed assessment of specific circumstances is a disproportionate measure.<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Declare the suspension order illegal. The case regarding wage recovery has been referred for a new review.<\/p>\n<p>Key Thesis: Each case of employee suspension requires an individual assessment of circumstances and proportionality of the measure.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126054324\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order to suspend an employee from work without pay due to refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19. 2. Key Court Arguments: The Supreme Court indicated that suspension from work must be proportional and involve an individual risk assessment. In this case: &#8211; The employee has&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-7504","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\/7504","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=7504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}