{"id":7572,"date":"2025-03-29T09:22:40","date_gmt":"2025-03-29T07:22:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-3477-23-dated-24-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-29T09:22:40","modified_gmt":"2025-03-29T07:22:40","slug":"case-no-520-3477-23-dated-24-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-520-3477-23-dated-24-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/3477\/23 dated 24\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the amount of monetary compensation for unissued personal property upon discharge from military service.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that disputes concerning compensation for servicemen should be considered under labor legislation rules with a three-month appeal period, rather than under administrative procedural timeframes. The Court indicated that monetary compensation for unissued personal property is a form of remuneration, and therefore more lenient court appeal terms apply. Judges of previous instances incorrectly applied procedural norms by returning the claim without consideration.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126071797\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the amount of monetary compensation for unissued personal property upon discharge from military service. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that disputes concerning compensation for servicemen should be considered under labor legislation rules with a three-month appeal period, rather than under administrative procedural timeframes. The Court&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-7572","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\/7572","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=7572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}