{"id":7508,"date":"2025-03-28T09:25:39","date_gmt":"2025-03-28T07:25:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-537-4740-20-dated-19-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-28T09:25:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T07:25:39","slug":"case-no-537-4740-20-dated-19-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-537-4740-20-dated-19-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 537\/4740\/20 dated 19\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery from the trade union organization of unpaid funds upon dismissal and average earnings for the delay in settlement.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The employer unlawfully withheld taxes from the previously court-recovered amount of average earnings for forced absence<br \/>\n&#8211; Upon dismissal, the employee was not paid all due amounts<br \/>\n&#8211; The appellate court incorrectly determined the amount of average earnings for the delay in settlement, without providing proper calculations<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: To cancel the appellate court&#8217;s resolution in the part of recovering average earnings for the delay in settlement and to refer the case for a new review to the appellate court.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court essentially deviated from previous practice regarding taxation of court recoveries.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126054360\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery from the trade union organization of unpaid funds upon dismissal and average earnings for the delay in settlement. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The employer unlawfully withheld taxes from the previously court-recovered amount of average earnings for forced absence &#8211; Upon dismissal, the employee&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-7508","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\/7508","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=7508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}