{"id":7923,"date":"2025-04-06T10:13:57","date_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:13:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-562-2758-24-dated-19-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-06T10:13:57","modified_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:13:57","slug":"case-no-562-2758-24-dated-19-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-562-2758-24-dated-19-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 562\/2758\/24 dated 19\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Compensation for Material Damage Caused by an Employee of JSC &#8220;Ukrzaliznytsia&#8221; during the Performance of Labor Duties.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Supreme Court established that PERSON_1 is not an official within the meaning of the Law &#8220;On Joint Stock Companies&#8221;, as he worked as the head of a structural unit and was not a member of the supervisory board or management board of the company.<\/p>\n<p>2. The Court concluded that the dispute does not fall under commercial jurisdiction, as the legal relations do not concern the actions of the defendant as an official of a commercial company.<\/p>\n<p>3. The Court deviated from the previous practice of commercial courts regarding the determination of jurisdiction in disputes between employees and employers.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration according to the rules of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126259062\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Compensation for Material Damage Caused by an Employee of JSC &#8220;Ukrzaliznytsia&#8221; during the Performance of Labor Duties. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court established that PERSON_1 is not an official within the meaning of the Law &#8220;On Joint Stock Companies&#8221;, as he worked as the head of a structural&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-7923","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\/7923","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=7923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}