{"id":8132,"date":"2025-04-10T10:58:46","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:58:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-300-5208-22-dated-03-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T10:58:46","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:58:46","slug":"case-no-300-5208-22-dated-03-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-300-5208-22-dated-03-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 300\/5208\/22 dated 03\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation:<\/p>\n

Subject of Dispute: Legality of Dismissal of a Civil Servant Due to Liquidation of a State Body.<\/p>\n

Key Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n

1. The Supreme Court established that in fact, there was not a liquidation, but a reorganization of the state body through the merger of territorial offices into the South-Western Interregional Office of the State Labor Service.<\/p>\n

2. According to the law, during reorganization, the employer is obligated to offer the civil servant another equivalent or lower position, which was not done in this case.<\/p>\n

3. The courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, considering that the liquidation of the state body had occurred.<\/p>\n

Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance to establish all circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Legality of Dismissal of a Civil Servant Due to Liquidation of a State Body. Key Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court established that in fact, there was not a liquidation, but a reorganization of the state body through the merger of territorial offices into the South-Western…<\/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-8132","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\/8132","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=8132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}