{"id":8152,"date":"2025-04-10T11:09:41","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T08:09:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-380-546-23-dated-04-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T11:09:41","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T08:09:41","slug":"case-no-380-546-23-dated-04-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-380-546-23-dated-04-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 380\/546\/23 dated 04\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging disciplinary penalties and dismissal of police officer PERSON_1 from the National Police bodies for violation of service discipline.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice and established that:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; The obligation to report extraordinary events to management applies to police officers regardless of whether they are on duty;<br \/>\n&#8211; The mere fact of drawing up an administrative protocol against a police officer indicates improper performance of service discipline;<br \/>\n&#8211; Closure of administrative proceedings does not negate the existence of a disciplinary offense;<br \/>\n&#8211; A police officer&#8217;s behavior must meet high ethical standards both during service and outside of it.<\/p>\n<p>The Court recognized disciplinary penalties as lawful due to:<br \/>\n&#8211; Refusal to undergo medical examination for intoxication<br \/>\n&#8211; Improper performance of official duties<br \/>\n&#8211; Aggressive behavior when communicating with colleagues<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Completely denied satisfaction of PERSON_1&#8217;s claim, all disciplinary penalties and dismissal were recognized as lawful.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126377687\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging disciplinary penalties and dismissal of police officer PERSON_1 from the National Police bodies for violation of service discipline. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice and established that: &#8211; The obligation to report extraordinary events to management applies to&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-8152","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\/8152","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=8152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}