{"id":7783,"date":"2025-04-03T10:32:20","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:32:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-400-6758-24-dated-28-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-03T10:32:20","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:32:20","slug":"case-no-400-6758-24-dated-28-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-400-6758-24-dated-28-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 400\/6758\/24 dated 28\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the inaction of the military unit regarding non-payment and improper calculation of monetary compensation for the period of service.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The court deviated from the previous practice of determining the term for appealing to the court, indicating that the term should be calculated from the moment the serviceman receives a document about the accrued amounts upon discharge.<br \/>\n2. The plaintiff did not receive monthly notifications about the amount of monetary compensation, which complicates determining the moment when he became aware of the violation of his rights.<br \/>\n3. The serviceman&#8217;s right to receive due payments is inalienable and does not depend on the previous calculation of funds by the employer.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review, recognizing that the plaintiff did not miss the term for appealing to the court.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126189612\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the inaction of the military unit regarding non-payment and improper calculation of monetary compensation for the period of service. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court deviated from the previous practice of determining the term for appealing to the court, indicating that the term&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-7783","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\/7783","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=7783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}